(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter.
Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro,
Mr. Cochran. The People are represented by Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch. Also
present is Mr. Darden and Ms. Lewis.

MS. LEWIS: Good afternoon, your Honor. Your Honor, I'm here just to ask
the Court to set a date for a hearing on a discovery motion which I filed this
morning. I faxed it to the Defense. I don't know if they have had an
opportunity to read that fax. I have also left copies at counsel table for
them. It is basically reiterating what we have gone through in the past. I also
want to note, your Honor, that we were promised a report from Dr. Gerdes by
what Mr. Blasier called the end of next week, which would have been last
Friday. We still have not received that. We have not received one single report
of an expert of theirs, so we would like this calendared as soon as possible to
be heard. There are a couple of legal issues.

THE COURT: All right. We do have two matters already set on the 16th,
and Mrs. Robertson, do you want to refresh my recollection why we have June
21st circled?

(Discussion held off the record between the Court and the clerk.)

THE COURT: All right. How about the 23rd at 1:30?

MR. COCHRAN: May I say something just a moment? I have not seen the
motion but I believe with regard to Dr. Gerdes, I know Mr. Blasier has
requested that report. Mr. Blasier is back east and I want to make sure, so he
will be handling that, and I'm sure the report will be here. But with regard to
the discovery motion, the 23rd will probably be good enough for us.

THE COURT: 23rd at 1:30.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, my only concern is that we are getting close
to--we are not only beyond thirty days before trial, we are practically to the
Defense case. Reciprocal discovery becomes meaningless given our lack of
receipt of discovery from the Defense.

THE COURT: Counsel, here is the thing. You filed the motion. They are
entitled to ten day's notice.

MS. LEWIS: I don't believe they are, your Honor. This is not a pretrial
motion. This is a motion to get them to comply with orders of this Court.

THE COURT: You find me a court rule that says that any motion is exempt
from the ten day notice and I will reconsider that.

MS. LEWIS: I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Court. It is just
that we are very eager for this information.

THE COURT: I understand and I have expressed my concern as well.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: 23rd at 1:30. It is just that we have got so many other
things that we would like to get to between now and then and we also have two
other extensive motions set on the 16th.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, are we ready to resume?

MR. KELBERG: One brief comment for the record because I have already
advised Mr. Shapiro and Dr. Wolf as it may affect her schedule. Over the
weekend, and in consultation with my colleagues, I have decided that we will
not call Dr. Golden, which has the ancillary benefit of providing me with an
exit from the courtroom, not that I don't enjoy being down here with this Court
and counsel, but I have other matters that I can attend to.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. KELBERG: But I may get out two or three days early, so I have made
that determination. We didn't feel that the jury needed to have two or three
days of wasted testimony, in our judgment, because all of the evidence that he
could provide is provided by the witness now testifying. So we want to get the
case to the jury and that is why we have made that decision. It is my decision
ultimately, because I am the lawyer presenting this evidence, so if
responsibility is to flow, it flows onto my shoulders.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Again, we have advised counsel.

THE COURT: Have you given Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro any head's up as
to who will be coming then after Dr. Lakshmanan?

MR. KELBERG: Yes. My understanding is that Mr. Bodziak from the FBI
concerning shoeprint evidence would be our next witness, presented, I believe,
by Mr. Goldman.

THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon. I can add this. Mr. Bodziak may not be ready
to go immediately after the Coroner. In the event that that is the case, we
will call the witnesses relative to the purchase of the gloves at
Bloomingdales. That would consist of approximately five witnesses. Counsel has
discovery, so they should be ready.

THE COURT: So either the gloves or the shoeprints?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. With regard to those witnesses--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. While I'm still thinking about it,
when will Mr. Bodziak be available?

MR. DARDEN: I'm not sure. That will be Miss Clark's witness. It is not
just a matter of him being available or being ready as well. We have changed
the schedule, the witness schedule, drastically.

THE COURT: Apparently. All right. So we may finish with the Prosecution
case this month?

MR. DARDEN: We may.

THE COURT: All right. That would thrill me to death. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Thrill all of us, your Honor. With regard to the witness
that he is talking about with regard to Bloomingdales, I have previously said
with Prosecution if we can arrange to meet with the lawyers for the Defense
meeting with the lawyers from the Prosecution, because we could save some time
as we go over that, so I will try to carve out some time with Mr. Darden with
regard to each of these witnesses and see if we can reach--

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense
counsel.)

THE COURT: Before we get started, Mr. Kelberg, can I ask you to
rescue your materials from the railing.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. I apologize.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, one final matter regarding the testimony of Dr.
Golden. We would ask the Court to request of Mr. Kelberg that we would like to
subpoena Dr. Golden and ask his assistance in that regard and have him here for
the beginning of our case in July as our witness.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Shouldn't be a problem.

MR. KELBERG: --Dr. Golden works every working day. He does not take sick
days, as I understand it. His office is very close by. I would anticipate no
difficulty. I don't know of any vacation schedule that he may have, but I would
anticipate absolutely no difficulty--

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, if you would then, after our first break, why
don't you talk to Dr. Lakshmanan, make sure that Mr. Golden is available first
half of July.

MR. KELBERG: Very well, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sure we can do that informally. All right. Deputy
Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, just briefly, this Friday the two motions that
are going to be heard, the first one concerns allegations with regard to
jurors. What is the other one?

THE COURT: I also have a 1026 proceeding on another case.

MS. LEWIS: Oh, I see.

THE COURT: A restoration of sanity after a second degree murder.

MS. LEWIS: Mary Ganahl I think is handling that?

THE COURT: Yes, yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough is back today and Miss Carter is off
the hook.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the
jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be
seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our
jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Dr. Lakshmanan, would you resume the witness
stand, please.

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the witness on the stand at the time of the
evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: However briefly. Let the record reflect that Dr.
Lakshmanan is again on the witness stand. Good afternoon, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you for returning with us this afternoon. And doctor,
sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may
continue with your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. KELBERG: And to you, doctor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to do a little more follow-up
regarding the two juries that you talked about at the end of Friday's testimony
which are reflected--are demonstrated in photographs G-51 and one of which is
better shown in a close-up in G-53 and these are the injuries which Dr. Golden
originally described, in essence, as one wound going in where we have injury
no. 1 by your designation of G-51, and exiting what you have as injury no. 2
and also nicking the ear which you have described, I believe, as injury no. 3
of that photograph; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And again the Court was correct, I don't think you get to
sit very long. If you could step to the board and perhaps bring the pointer
that is behind you--

THE COURT: And Mr. Kelberg, we are referring to 358?

MR. KELBERG: Exhibit 358, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, your opinion, as I believe you testified last week,
was that these are separate sharp force injuries, injuries no. 1 and no. 2; is
that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And as I recall your testimony also, injury no. 2 is
described by you as entering in the area shown in the photograph where Dr.
Golden describes it, in essence, as exiting; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What leads you to form the opinion that that is where the
knife entered rather than the knife exiting?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is because of the appearance of both the wounds. If
you had a knife which entered here on the left side of the neck,
(indicating), and came out here at this point behind the ear,
(indicating), when this ripping of the skin is caused you would expect
more cutting of the skin on this part, that is the outer part of this wound,
which really doesn't show any cut in the depth wound. It only shows mostly like
a bridge going. The cut is mostly on the surface. As I already mentioned, this
is a complex wound caused by different penetrations on a preexisting cut or it
could have been a separate penetration without a preexisting cut, but in my
opinion this is a separate wound, (indicating), this is a separate
wound, (indicating). This wound to the left ear could be related to this
wound as I explained I think two days ago, and the--also the directions are
different for--which supports my opinion.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, when the witness was initially
talking about the appearance of the surface cutting, he was referring to injury
no. 1 of G-51, and when he was referring to the direction, he was referring
initially to injury no. 2 and then back to injury no. 1. May the record so
reflect?

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your review of the evidence in this case, did
you also review testimony given by Dr. Golden before the Los Angeles County
Grand Jury on June 20th of 1994?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: And inviting counsel, if they are so inclined, to page 114
of the grand jury transcript, and in particular beginning line 1 of that page
and continuing on to page 115, and on to page 116, doctor, did you review this
testimony from Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: "Question: I'm focusing now on the injury which appears to
be a rather large hole in the left side of the neck." And you interpreted that,
doctor, to refer to what is described as injury no. 1; is that correct, of
G-51?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the answer is "Yes." "Question: Approximately how large
was that particular wound? "Answer: That wound was three inches in length. It
was a gaping, as you can see, wound, and after putting it together it was three
inches in length, tapering as you--if you taper it here, tapering where I
indicated towards the back of the neck where it involves just the skin.

"Question: Would you describe that wound as a cutting wound or stabbing wound
or both? "Answer: Well, it appears to be a combination of stabbing and cutting
wounds. "Question: Now, it appears to be a deep wound and I can see why you
call that a stabbing wound. Can you tell us why it is that you also described
that as a cutting wound? "Answer: Well, first of all, it is very wide, so it is
compatible with a narrower blade that is also cutting the skin. Also, it
appears to taper into that area which indicates that this may have been a
slicing component also. It is a stab wound. It goes into the neck and connects
with another wound behind the left ear which is at a distance of approximately
four inches from that first wound." Doctor, you interpret that last reference
to be to what is described as injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, these questions you read were from a Deputy
District Attorney from the name of Mr. Conn, C-O-N-N?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Continuing the answer: "So it appears that it is at least
four inches deep. "Question: So what you are saying is that this wound going
into the neck is connected to this wound coming out on the left side on the
back side of the left ear? "Answer: Yes. Of course I can't unequivocally say
which one came first. It also appears that the one on the lower neck came
first, but it is also possible that it came from downward and came out,
depending on how the neck was held, but they do connect. "Question: And there
also appears to be in this photograph an injury to the ear where the ear is
cut." And did you interpret that, doctor, to refer to this injury, I believe
you described it as injury no. 3 of photograph G-51?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it is injury no. 4.

MR. KELBERG: Or no. 4?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 4 I did.

MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 4?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And continuing on in the question: "Can you determine at
all whether that injury to the ear was part of the--of one continuous movement
from the neck into the back of the ear and then up to the ear? "Answer: Yes. I
made an assumption by placing a rod or probe along the entire length there.
They all connected up. So it is possible that one stabbing motion caused all
three of those, which would make it about a six-inch long wound. In other
words, from here, if I include this earlobe cut --correction, not earlobe but
the ear cut--if the ear cut and this and this are all connected, there is
approximately a six-inch long stabbing wound and that is the completion
actually of the testimony regarding the relationship if any between these."
Doctor, in your opinion is Dr. Golden's testimony in that area an erroneous
opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you described with respect to how
the addendum came to reflect a change to two separate wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is this a mistake, doctor, that you consider significant to
you in evaluating the big ticket questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons as you explained last Friday on them
same area?

MR. KELBERG: Can you take us through what, if any, additional injuries
you see in that photograph and then we will go through a description of each
and any additional information and then we will go to the protocols and so
forth on those.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. There is also a cut to the left earlobe. There is a
cut to the left ear here, (indicating). This is a cut abrasion to
the--part of the ear behind the ear canal. There is a triangular abrasion to
the left side of the jaw. There is another linear interrupted cut to the left
angle of the jaw here, (indicating). And there are some smaller
abrasions to the left side of the chin which would complete all the injuries in
this photograph.

MR. KELBERG: Have you again arbitrarily numbered these additional
injuries that you have just described as numbers 5 through whatever the last
number would be for--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, through 12 I think. Just a moment.

(Brief pause.)

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I numbered them up to 12.

MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Let's go individually, if we can. Injury
no. 5 in photograph G-51 is which injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the one to the earlobe, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And what kind of injury is that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a cut to the earlobe.

MR. KELBERG: And in your evaluation were you able to determine the
instrument or nature of how that cut was inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a sharp force injury.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, from what you saw, were you able to say whether
or not it was only from a single-edged knife or could it have been from either
a single-edge or a double-edge?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have been from either.

MR. KELBERG: What told you that that was the case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is just a cut, and as I mentioned earlier
when we discussed in general about sharp force injuries, you cannot tell the
difference when you just have a cut.

MR. KELBERG: From your observation of it and any review of Dr. Golden's
protocol information, how deep was that cut?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a cut to the earlobe, so it is just a cut. It is
not--depth has not been described.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, in that area, how deep is the earlobe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is less than a quarter inch.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine whether that injury was
received before death, at or around the time of death or after death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Before death.

MR. KELBERG: What led you to that conclusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance.

MR. KELBERG: What about the appearance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The bleeding that you can see in some of the scene
photographs also.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The crime scene photographs also you can see the
wound.

MR. KELBERG: You have looked at all of the crime scene photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Concerning the bodies as found?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in those you saw what was of significance to you on
this issue of whether or not that was received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you have evidence of blood over the area and
also the reddish appearance which is antemortem.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything about the position of that cut
that gives you any information regarding the relative position of Mr. Goldman
and the perpetrator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else, as far as a description of that
particular cut goes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is the cut to the left ear here,
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: If I could just duck under you for one second, doctor.

MR. KELBERG: Would you point again.

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, this is a different cut than the cut you
previously referred to as injury no. 4; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 4 is to the edge of the ear. This cut is to
the side of the ear behind the ear canal there.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may the record reflect that this new injury no.
6 is slightly to the left and below what was previously described as injury no.
4.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again, are you able to determine when in
relationship to the time of death that injury was received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That also occurred before death.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons you just described--pardon me--for
injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, injury no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the appearance and the nature.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a sharp force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to differentiate between a single-edge or a
double-edge knife for that particular sharp force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I'm not able to.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is only a cut and the same reasons I gave
earlier, when you just have an incise wound you cannot differentiate between a
single-edge or a double-edge.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion are both injuries 5 and 6, however,
injuries which could have been inflicted with that same single-edged knife that
you said approximately would have to have a six-inch long blade?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to offer information, from your review
of that injury and any other material concerning the relative positions of Mr.
Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that sharp force injury was received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I'm not able to.

MR. KELBERG: Is this injury no. 6 addressed by Dr. Golden in the autopsy
protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has addressed it in the autopsy protocol but not--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has addressed it.

MR. KELBERG: I think I heard you say he has not diagrammed it in any of
the available diagram forms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is his failure to diagram injury no. 6 a mistake, in your
judgment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does that mistake have any significance to you in
evaluating things like cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or whether one knife could have caused all of the sharp
force injuries that Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown Simpson received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or the manner of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Why not, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because as I mentioned earlier, it is only a cut and it
could have been caused by a single-edge or a double-edge and really does not
have any significant impact on all the items we just discussed and is not a
fatal wound.

MR. KELBERG: I assume the same would apply to injury no. 5? That is not
a fatal wound either?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this addressed at all by Dr. Golden in his
addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was in the original protocol so it is not addressed
in the addendum.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion was there any reason that he needed to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about injury no. 6, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.

MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 7?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 7 is a linear abrasion, measurement 3/8 of an
inch in length, and it is behind the left ear canal.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me slide over one more time just briefly.
Would you point that out again for us.

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the witness has pointed, this injury no.
7, the abrasion, is to the left and below what has been described as injury no.
6, the cut to the ear.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how can you tell that is an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance and its characteristics.

MR. KELBERG: What is it about the appearance and characteristics that
led you to that conclusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it looks like a linear scrape, reddish brown in
color.

MR. KELBERG: Now, do you have an opinion as to what source or sources
could have inflicted that linear abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One source could have been the dull edge of the knife
could have caused the same wound--the same stroke which caused this cut could
have just scraped the superficial part of the skin here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the same--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Cut which caused the injury no. 6 could have also caused
this cut abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: The same instrument you mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, the same instrument.

MR. KELBERG: And you indicated I believe using the term "Dull"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Dull edge of a blade?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: If it is a dull edge of a blade, what kind of knife must
that be?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Single-edge.

MR. KELBERG: And how in your opinion could that same knife have created
that abrasion as it created the cut that is injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you could have had the cut and then the knife
movement could have also caused the cut abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: How does the knife movement create that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if it is turned or twisted you could have this
abrasion caused.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again that is an antemortem, that is, before
death abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, the reddish brown color.

MR. KELBERG: Does this have any significant impact on cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a mistake?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it significant to you on these big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons that you just expressed for the
failure to diagram injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that particular one, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, did Dr. Golden address it at all in his
addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: How about no. 8 then, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 8 is the triangular abrasion in the left side of the
jaw.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm sorry, would you point to it one more time,
please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the doctor has
pointed to something which appears to be almost in the immediate center of the
photograph and does appear to be triangularly shaped with the point of the
triangle facing the top of the photograph.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of injury is that, in your opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a triangular-shaped abrasion which is a blunt
force type injury.

MR. KELBERG: How were you able to make that determination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance of the injury itself.

MR. KELBERG: What is it about the appearance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is triangular in shape and it is not a cut. It looks
more like an abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Is this an injury that you inspect with your magnifying
glass to make these kind of determinations as to is it is an abrasion versus a
cut or laceration?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, because with a magnifying glass you are
able to see. If it is due to a sharp force injury you will see the splitting of
the skin.

MR. KELBERG: And did you in fact do that with this particular injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Did you see that splitting of the skin associated with the
sharp force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine when in relationship to death
that injury was received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is an antemortem, before death.

MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same reasons I gave earlier, the appearance and the
nature of the wound.

MR. KELBERG: Does this play any significant impact on cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons as you have expressed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden address this in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Does he diagram it anywhere in the available diagrams?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Does he address it in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you consider it a mistake on the part of Dr.
Golden not to have described it initially and not to have diagrammed it
initially?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are those mistakes significant to you on these big ticket
questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else about that--oh, I know I
wanted to ask you, do you have any opinion, from your review of the material,
as to what source or sources could have caused that particular
triangular-shaped abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a blunt--nonspecific blunt force trauma. As I told
you earlier, if you look at the scene, there are some branches which are
cut--cut plant branches, some of them could have caused this kind of injury.

MR. KELBERG: I think we are going to look at that again when we look in
more detail at G-55; is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Interrupted means there is areas of skin which are
intact in the line of--in the line of path of injury.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, where the witness has been pointing may the
record reflect--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Intact skin in between, (indicating), the length
of the injury.

MR. KELBERG: May the record reflect that the injury described as injury
no. 9 by the doctor--this is injury no. 9, correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --appears to run at a 45-degree angle and appears to begin
approximately halfway between the bottom of the ear and the left jawline and
runs diagonally in a downward direction toward the back of the neck.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: When the doctor was talking about interrupted, in looking
at the photograph there appears to be a reddishness part to the line and then
it becomes pale for a short distance and then reddish again, pale again,
reddish again, pale and slightly reddish as it tails off in the photograph in
the lower right-hand side.

THE COURT: Yes, that appears to accurately depict that wound.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in talking about abrasions, I'm not sure you
discussed what a cut abrasion is. You talked about other kinds.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Umm, a cut abrasion is where a dull edge of a knife can
cause a wound on the skin's surface. Not necessarily--it mainly scrapes the
surface of the skin, but the margins will be sharp because it is caused by a
sharp instrument's dull edge and that is a little different from another linear
abrasion where you do not necessarily have the clean-cut appearance to the
margins. And if you see it in a magnifying glass you can tell the difference.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in talking about a dull edge, are you talking about
a specific type of knife that creates that kind of interrupted abrasion, a cut
abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A single-edge knife could do that or the dull tip doing
this kind of injury.

MR. KELBERG: Would you expect a double-edge knife to be able to give
that kind of impression?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could, but the--the knife has to be drawn
perpendicular to the cutting edges. The tip has to be drawn across the skin's
surface, but I would favor the former to the latter.

MR. KELBERG: Why is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reason I mentioned earlier, because this
would--this would have a more linear appearance than the other one, but it is
difficult to differentiate.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is this also an injury that is received before
death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the appearance and the color.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this play any significant role in cause of
death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram it in any available form?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed at all in that addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: In your judgment any reason that he needed to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not necessary.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell in any way, from what you see and have
reviewed, the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator to result
in this particular injury no. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I have considered that, but you cannot tell.

MR. KELBERG: Why can you not tell?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it is an injury which is in an area which could
have been either the perpetrator could have been in the front or the back.

MR. KELBERG: The perpetrator could have been either to the front of Mr.
Goldman or the back?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Back on the side.

MR. KELBERG: Of Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: When this injury was received or inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that injury, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.

MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 10 is a faint abrasion which you can see
running from the--below the left ear downwards here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is that seen also--if we could move up to G-53,
is that seen in that photograph as well?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, may the record reflect that the
injury no. 10 is a linear abrasion pointed out by the doctor in both
photographs G-51 and G-53, appears to be, as you look at the photograph, to the
left of injury no. 2 in G-51, running in the same direction as G-51's injury
no. 2 and terminating short of where injury no. 2 in G-51 terminates?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how are you able to tell that is an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The appearance, and as I told you, I examined all these
injuries with the magnifying glass also in the photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Did you measure from the life-size one-to-one photographs
to determine the approximate length of that abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It was one and a half inches.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does this abrasion play any significant role in
cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or in any of the big ticket questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to what cause or causes could
have inflicted that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a nonspecific blunt force linear injury, and as I
told you, there are some branches and plant stalk which could have resulted in
that kind of injury.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Dr. Golden address this in his protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He did not address this, per se, in his protocol. He
described a cut there.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did he diagram this abrasion in his original
diagram forms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not as an abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: Did he address this abrasion in his addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: I think this might be an opportunity, if Mr. Lynch could
help me out to put up a diagram.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you find, in your review of the protocol
and a diagram, that Dr. Golden had some injury associated with this same
general area as injury no. 10 but which, in your opinion, is not the same
injury that you have just described and which you see in those photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Let me take this down for just a second.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Can you refer me, doctor, to which diagram?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it is on the addendum description page 4 and if
we go to the--

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If we go to the 22 diagrams.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Put that up first. Which one of the 22's,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next. 22-II, I think, if I remember right. No,
22-III. Yeah. That is the one right there, 22-II.

MR. KELBERG: Keep your voice up, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 22-II.

MR. KELBERG: Let me get out of the way. First of all, what is it that
you see on diagram 22 roman numeral ii that you believe is associated with the
same general area as that injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one and 1/8 inch cut that says, "Incise wound
superficial," one and 1/8 inch long behind the left ear.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where you have indicated with your marker I'm going
to circle and I will write "G-51" and I'm also going to write "G-53" and I will
put in quotation marks, "Cut." Doctor, if Dr. Golden described this as a cut,
in your opinion, he has inaccurately assessed what the injury that you see as
an abrasion actually is; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and also this is a diagrammatic representation. All
I could see in that area was this linear abrasion I just described. I didn't
see any cut.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is it a mistake to opine that that is a
cut rather than an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it significant, however, as a mistake, on your ability
to determine any of these big ticket questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reasons I alluded to earlier, because it is
only a superficial injury. It didn't have anything to do with the cause of
death or my ability to characterize the wound or my ability to determine that
it is a single-edge or a double-edge or my ability to interpret fatality from
an injury, the bleeding patterns, because it is a superficial injury. So really
it didn't have an impact as far as the big ticket items we have been discussing
on every other injury so far.

MR. KELBERG: The measurement that is provided there of one and 1/8 inch
is different than your measurement of one and one-half inch?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct, but also my orientation is a little
different because the abrasion I diagrammed as--not diagrammed--I perceived
from the photograph is parallel to the injury here. This looks as it is running
from the attachment of the earlobe backwards into the skin--the back of the
neck.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me put up again the photograph--let me actually
hold it down a bit so that we can see the orientation as seen in the
photograph. And I would ask you, if you can, please, to diagram on form 22, let
me give your the blue marker--can you diagram in there the orientation you
believe accurately reflects the orientation of the abrasion itself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Just an approximation, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, Dr. Lakshmanan has made three
dash lines within that area of red that I just circled in the upper right
quadrant diagram for form 22. And what I'm going to do is draw with a blue line
out to the side and write "G-51, G-53, injury, inj., no. 10."

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you mentioned Dr. Golden had some
information in the original protocol referring to this cut; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes and--

MR. KELBERG: Where within the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is on page 4, here, (indicating), lower
paragraph: "Also in the left postauricular region, transversely oriented,
extending from the auricular attachment laterally to the scalp is a one and 1/8
inch linear superficial incised wound." Last four lines of paragraph 3.

MR. KELBERG: And where Dr. Lakshmanan has just pointed that out and read
it, I will outline that in blue on page 4 of the protocol which is our board
0G. And I apologize, 4G was the board for the form 22.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: I will write out at the side "G-51, G-53" and I will write
the word "Cut," C-U-T, in quotation marks.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor was there any description or additional
information provided by Dr. Golden in the addendum referring to the cut versus
the abrasion injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me put up the photo one more time because I want to
focus this time on G-53 and invite your attention, if I could, to where I'm
pointing now, is this same abrasion, injury no. 10; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And there appears to be some discoloration right at the
upper end of that injury that is not seen in the angle of the photograph G-51.
Do you see that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does that observation have any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is just a blood clot there behind the ear which has
not been washed off and that is what this discoloration is, a blood clot
remaining there in spite of all the washing and cleaning before the
photographing.

MR. KELBERG: Does that blood clot have any significance to you in being
able to form an opinion as to whether what you described as an abrasion, injury
no. 10, was in fact a cut as Dr. Golden described it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There is no cut there, and this blood clot is probably
related to the cut on the earlobe.

MR. KELBERG: Cut in the earlobe which you have previously described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and Dr. Golden has described, also.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider it then a mistake for Dr. Golden
again to have addressed in his protocol this particular item as a cut?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because I don't see it in the photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Is the area that Dr. Golden describes as being the area
where the cut is observed visible in both photographs G-53 and G-51?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and--

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this cut versus the
abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is injury no. 11 then?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 11 is superficial irregular
abrasions--actually 11 and 12 below injury no. 8 on the inferior chin here,
those abrasions here, (indicating), and here, (indicating). This
is 11 and 12 respectively. You have some faint abrasion itself which are
nonspecific.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor, which is 11 and which is 12?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The left chin below injury no. 8.

MR. KELBERG: Is 11 the one that is in the lower left-hand corner of the
photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, for the record, in the lower left-hand
corner where the chin is.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where the doctor was pointing.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And 12 is an area which is a bit below and a little to the
right of the triangular-shaped abrasion; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, tell us about these two particular findings?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: These are nonspecific superficial abrasions and could be
related to the same type of plant material contact I discussed earlier
regarding the linear abrasions.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to determine again whether these are
inflicted or received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They appear to be antemortem.

MR. KELBERG: Again why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Same reasons, the appearance, the discoloration.

MR. KELBERG: Do they play any role in cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or any of the other big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address these in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram them anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Did he address them in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All mistakes in your judgment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Significant singularly or collectively?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the same reasons I gave earlier, these are
very superficial injuries. They have no significance to the cause of death.
They do not interfere with my ability to discuss the nature of the sharp force
injuries or the bleeding patterns or any of the other issues I have discussed
before previously.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there any other injuries that are in photograph
G-53 that we have not discussed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I think we have discussed all the injuries in G-51
and G-53.

MR. KELBERG: Before--and I included, I'm sorry, by omission, but I
intend to include it, G-37 before we put up the protocols and so forth to show
which are the diagrammed injuries and described injuries, I wanted to come back
just briefly to one of the injuries you described in G-37 as I believe a cut
below injury no. 2, the superficial incise.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said it is an abrasion, yeah.

MR. KELBERG: Abrasion, I'm sorry. In talking with you this afternoon you
brought some additional information to my attention. I think you said last week
that it could be caused by a fingernail?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there additional source or sources that you believe it
would be important to know?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it is a rough glove, the glove also could do the same
type of abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: A rough glove?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It is an abrasion injury. I just gave one example
the other day and I gave another example today.

MR. KELBERG: How is that done by a rough glove?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same kind of movement which I discussed that day,
gloved finger can also cause the same type of abrasion when these threatening
cuts were made.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else you wanted to add about that particular one,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, then let's go to the protocols and the addendums
and the diagrams for the other injuries of G-51 that we have not discussed. Why
don't we start--we had gone through injury 4, I believe you said, so should we
start with injury no. 5? I think you said that that was addressed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, injury no. 5 is on the protocol and it is on page 4
here, (indicating). It is the linear triangular size wound of the
inferior portion of the left earlobe.

MR. KELBERG: Just will you point that out real quickly for us?

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating). It is there and here, this G-53, it
is on the left earlobe here, (indicating), and G-51 you can see it in
the left earlobe here and this is the description here on the protocol,
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red on page 4 of board 0G and that
is going to be "G-51 inj. No. 5."

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, if at all, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed in 22-II.

MR. KELBERG: If I could ask Mr. Lynch just to temporarily take care of
that board.

MR. KELBERG: You say 22-II which we have up, our 4G board?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What has he done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has diagrammed accurately the left earlobe of an inch
wound and you can see it here.

MR. KELBERG: Does this writing that appears above what appears to be a
horizontal line have anything to do with that particular injury no. 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is magnified demonstration of the same injury to show
that it is a cut to the earlobe.

MR. KELBERG: Where the doctor has indicated on the form in the lower
right-hand quadrant, I will circle it in red and I will write "G-51 inj. No.
5."

MR. KELBERG: Is that accurate, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does that take care of all of the entries regarding injury
no. 5?

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's separate, if we could, first of all, point
out for us, if you would, which is injury no. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 6 is the cut to the left ear behind the ear
canal. You can see it also in G-53 and in G-51. The linear abrasion is behind
the ear canal in G-53 and you can also see it in G-51.

MR. KELBERG: That would be injury no. 7; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let's break this down then. Which part is injury no. 6 as
described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The first two lines.

MR. KELBERG: Ending with the word "Pinna."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that in red on page 7 of this board and I
will write "G-51 inj. No. 6."

MR. KELBERG: And then the next sentence refers to--in this same subgroup
refers to injury no. 7?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I will outline that in blue and write on the right-hand
side "G-51 inj. No. 7."

MR. KELBERG: Any other place in the protocol for either of those two?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: You said there was no diagram done of no. 6; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Any diagramming done of no. 7?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any aspect of the addendum addressing either one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: How about no. 8, injury no. 8?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 8 is in the addendum description.

MR. KELBERG: Injury no. 8 again is which one, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 8 is the triangular abrasion to the angle of
the jaw which is this one here, (indicating), which I described earlier,
and it is also seen in G-51 and 53.

MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Where in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is not in the protocol, it is not in the diagram, but
it is on the addendum, page 4, no. 9.

MR. KELBERG: No. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, no, not no. 9. No. 8, (indicating)--here, no.
10.

MR. KELBERG: "On the left side of the jaw at the angle of the mandible
there is a triangular shaped brown abrasion measuring maximally 1/4 inch."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I will outline that from our board no. 10G, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: And I will write at the side "G-51 inj. No. 7", doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. 8.

MR. KELBERG: No. 8, I'm sorry. Any entry in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: How about injury no. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is diagrammed in--is--

MR. KELBERG: It addressed in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm sorry, not in the protocol. Is it is in the diagram
and the addendum.

MR. KELBERG: Let's stay in the addendum since we have it up. Where in
the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The linear cut abrasion which I have described earlier
just above the triangular abrasion in G-51 and in 53.

MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, on that same page then I will outline it in
blue and on the left side I will write "G-51 inj. No. 9."

MR. KELBERG: Correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, where is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is in 22, no. I. You can see it here,
(indicating), right here, (indicating), between the lower left
neck, sharp force injury, and the left postauricular sharp force injury is a
linear cut abrasion.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is there any writing that has been added by Dr.
Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says here, "Three and a half inch interrupted incise
wound superficial," arrow pointing to that, so that would be injury no. 9.

MR. KELBERG: What the doctor has just pointed, your Honor, I will circle
that area in the lower right-hand quadrant diagram of 22-I.

MR. KELBERG: And I will write "G-51 inj. No. 10," doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No, no. 9.

MR. KELBERG: No. 9, I'm sorry. I will write no. 9. While we are here,
doctor, I don't think we actually outlined injury no. 2, that is that one that
we talked about that is part of the continuation of injury no. 3 of G-37,
injury no. 1 of G-51 or whether, as you opined, it was a separate wound. Is
that this area here, (indicating)?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can see it here. It says, "Two inch incise wound
superficial" right here, (indicating), and this is the part of injury
no. 2 which we discussed earlier under the photograph description.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be some writing above what you
just read. Does that refer to this particular injury as well?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It says "Border is wavy" and that is what is being
described.

MR. KELBERG: Does any of the writing above that refer to that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says--actually this part of the six inches is the
location of the--of this incise wound, actually, of injury no. 3, and the
direction is--also refers to the injury no. 1 actually, so--

MR. KELBERG: I will circle that injury all in blue in the same form,
lower right-hand quadrant and I will write "G-51 inj. No. 2."

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything more on the diagramming of injury no. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And then you said it is found in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. We already discussed that.

MR. KELBERG: Have we taken care of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So we are done with injury no. 9?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. How about injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Injury no. 10 is not described.

MR. KELBERG: How about in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: So there is nothing referring to injury no. 10?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And no. 11 and 12, what did you say?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not diagrammed, not described.

MR. KELBERG: Not in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are we done then with that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else regarding G-53 that
we have not discussed with respect to its appearance in G-51?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, except that for the wound behind the ear there is a
7/8 component which is described in the addendum and it is seen in the
photograph, which would be the penetrating part of the stab wound as I
discussed.

MR. KELBERG: When you say a "7/8 inch component"--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is the penetrating area of the stab wound
behind the left ear.

MR. KELBERG: And that is found in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In an area--let me just see if we didn't cover that. What
page, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That will be in page 2, no. 4, here. It is covered in
the addendum but not in the original protocol.

MR. KELBERG: And the component, is that of significance to you in
deciding that that is an entry area for a second sharp force injury rather than
an exit associated with injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct and also I have already given you the
other reasons already.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else about that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's get that down.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: One last thing comes to my mind, doctor, regarding
injuries numbers 1 and 2 as seen in photograph G-37. And again, as part of your
review of the grand jury testimony by Dr. Golden, did you find Dr. Golden made
reference to those two particular superficial incise wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: If I may have just a moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: And inviting counsel to page 120 of the grand jury
testimony and beginning questioning by Mr. Conn of the District Attorney's
office on line 8 through line 20 with the answer, doctor, did you review this
testimony: "Question: Now, the wounds that we looked at so far, which are
People's 6, 7 and 8, the injury to the neck here, can you tell us anything
about the time that those wounds may have been inflicted? "Answer: Well, the
two deep wounds on each side of the neck occurred before death. There is
extensive bruising along or in the tissues. The two wounds across the larynx,
those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding." Let me stop at this
point, doctor. Did you interpret that testimony to refer to injuries numbers 1
and 2, that is, the two wounds across the larynx?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Continuing, as I said: "The two wounds across the larynx,
those superficial ones, don't have as much bleeding. I think that it is
possible that they occurred on or about the time of death. In other words, when
blood pressure had dropped considerably. In other words, maybe later on in
the--or during the assault or the sequence." Doctor, in your opinion is Dr.
Golden's opinion one which is medically sound concerning those two superficial
incise wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. My--

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My opinion is that they occurred when he had blood
pressure, one, was there is dermal hemorrhage described by Dr. Golden in the
report itself. No. 2, when I reviewed the crime scene photographs, we have
definite evidence of bleeding from those wounds.

MR. KELBERG: Was the presence of dermal bleeding of significance to you
in deciding when in relationship to the time of death those two control
superficial incise wounds were received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would indicate that Mr. Goldman had blood pressure
when those wounds were inflicted and that would--because to have bleeding in
the dermis you need to have blood pressure.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Kelberg. Are you referring to G-37, the incise
wound.

MR. KELBERG: Yes, G-37, injuries no. 1 and 2. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in forming your opinion that those two superficial
incise wounds represented control type of injuries--I think you talked about
threatening, as the perpetrator is threatening or taunting I believe may have
been the words you used?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: --in your opinion did that indicate that those were, if not
the first two, very close to the first two injuries received by Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because they are control cuts. As I told you, they run
parallel. They railroad track like. And I also pointed out to you the cut above
the wound which would favor that they occurred earlier when the victim was in
close proximity and held immobilized by the suspect.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else you wish to add to your assessment
of Dr. Golden's conclusion regarding those two superficial incise wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else, because the dermal hemorrhage has been
described in the report. The crime scene photographs indicate they are
antemortem when they happened during life.

MR. KELBERG: Since you mentioned again the dermal hemorrhage, can you
refer me by page?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are on page--page 5, no. 3 and 4. No. 4, it says,
"There is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage" and no. 3 it says, "Small amount
of cutaneous hemorrhage is evident."

MR. KELBERG: Where the witness has indicated, your Honor, on or about
our 0G page 5 of the protocol--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --I will underline sub-parts 3 and 4.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that issue, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden's opinion, which you describe as not
medically supported, constitute a mistake, in your judgment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it is an opinion.

MR. KELBERG: It is a mistaken opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In my opinion, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you in forming any of your
own opinions on these issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The presence of hemorrhage indicates it is
antemortem and would go along with my opinion that they probably occurred
earlier in the struggle and they were threatening wounds.

MR. KELBERG: Is the fact that in your opinion his opinion is a mistake,
does the mistake aspect have any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: You are able to form your own opinions regarding these
matters in spite of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And as I told you, the crime scene photographs do
show bleeding in the wounds.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can we move back now, I think we are--we still have
some injuries, G-55, G-40 and G-50 to describe; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Could we start with photograph G-55 and I'm going to save
for a later time a discussion of the head area, but at this point I want to
focus, if we could, please, on what appears to be some kind of discoloration
area that is to the right of that major sharp force injury you described last
week that is also seen in G-40.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a 5/8 inch stab wound and that is located in the
right side of the neck, (indicating), and that is the main description
of that injury.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this the same sharp force injury that we see in
the lower right-hand corner of the cropped photo G-50 up here in the corner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Here, this is a more closer up photograph of the
same injury. You can see the ends of the wound better defined. You can tell
whether it is a sharp end or a blunt end. You can see that the front of the
wound is sharp and the back of the wound is slightly forked, and this measured
I think 1/16 inch in width.

MR. KELBERG: What measured that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The forked end.

MR. KELBERG: The overall wound measured how much?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 5/8 of an inch.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is this also seen in the lower right hand neck
area in photograph G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did you give this a number, with respect to one or more of
these photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I described it as injury no. 2 under G-40.

MR. KELBERG: Now, injury no. 1 of G-40 is--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This larger penetrating type wound in the back of the
right side of the neck which continues or is in conjunction--seen in
conjunction with injury no. 2, which is that long superficial cut in the lower
neck which we called this injury no. 2 in G-37.

MR. KELBERG: Let's focus then on injury no. 2 for a second, as seen
perhaps most clearly, as you said, in G-50. Are you able to determine the type
of instrument that could have made that injury, that sharp force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a stab wound from a knife.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine whether it is a single-edged or
it could be either a single- edge or double-edge?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a single-edge or a double-edge knife. It
could be a single-edge knife with a blunt edge which caused the forking of the
wound.

MR. KELBERG: Going back to that chart we did I think the second day you
were testifying regarding the correlation between types of knives and the kind
of wounds and their appearances on the surface, do you recall which of the
types--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is no. 3, no. 3, the lower portion which had the
forking on the top. This wound is similar to that.

MR. KELBERG: Is it, however, doctor, your opinion that that
approximately six-inch long blade that you talked about that is a single-edged
knife could be the source for this sharp force injury, this stab wound injury
no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be, because you see--the wound has been only
described as two inches in-depth and it communicates with injury no. 1, and so
it would be more toward the tapering part of the knife.

MR. KELBERG: When you say two inches, that is a description given by Dr.
Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: To represent what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The depth of the wound.

MR. KELBERG: Can you say again, this word "Communicates," what do you
mean by that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They share a common path with this wound,
(indicating), which is injury no. 1 in G-40, I think.

MR. KELBERG: If we could go perhaps to G-55, does this perhaps show most
clearly the relationship on the body between the injuries--injury no. 2, this
stab wound you have just been talking about, and what is that other sharp force
injury, and I'm not sure which designation you gave it, I believe you said
injury no. 1 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This gives a better orientation. This wound is in
front of injury no. 1 of G-40 and it is behind the right terminal portion of
injury no. 1 of G-37 which is one of the superficial cuts to the front of the
neck which we discussed earlier.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden address in his original protocol both injury
no. 2 of G-40 and injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: How did he, in essence, describe them, before we look at
the actual paperwork?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He described them as communicating and he described them
as being possibly entrance and exit of one wound, but in the addendum he
describes them that they could be separate wounds.

MR. KELBERG: In the original protocol, let's put that up then and see
what he said and follow up with the specific questioning.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Where, doctor, on the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is page 4, no. 2, and page 5.

MR. KELBERG: Let's see if we can--without impaling Mr. Lynch, if I hold
this and I watch myself with Mr. Darden and Miss Clark, what page I'm sorry,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 4, no. 2. Start here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: You are saying item no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Down at the bottom of the page?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then it goes on to page no. 5.

MR. KELBERG: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Before we turn the page, Mr. Lynch, if you could give me a
marker to the right of my notebook and let me outline this. As the description
starts, doctor, is Dr. Golden referring to injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is actually starting with injury no. 2. If you go on,
I will show you the next page.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Well, let me outline it then and so this is
going to be "G-40 inj. Numbers 1 and no. 2."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I will put also "G-55 and G-50" and that would be
"Injury no. 2, inj. No. 2."

MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now let's flip.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He actually starts describing as a complex wound and
then he says: "The initial wound present is present on the right side of the
neck over the sternocleidomastoid muscle, three inches below the right auditory
canal measures 5/8 of inch in length."

MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you. That is a reference then specifically then
to injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And let me underline "After approximation of the
edges measures 5/8 inch in length" and I will write out on the left border
"G-40 inj. No. 2."

MR. KELBERG: Go on if you would, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then he says that: "The wound path is through the skin
and subcutaneous tissue without penetration of injury of a major artery or
vein."

MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you there. Does that have significance to you
in evaluating whether either injury no. 1, as you describe it, or injury no. 2,
as you describe it, are fatal wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are not fatal wounds.

MR. KELBERG: Either one of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Go on, if you would, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "The direction of the--the direction is front to back
and upward, for a total wound path of two inches and the wound exits on the
right side of the back of the neck, posterior to the right sternocleidomastoid
muscle where a two-inch gaping long incise wound is evident on the skin."

MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you at that point. I'm going to underline the
part about the direction that you have just read.

MR. KELBERG: And would it be accurate where it says, "And the wound
exits on the right side of the back of the neck," that Dr. Golden is referring
to what you've described as injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So let me write to the left of this "G-40 inj. No. 1."

MR. KELBERG: All right. Continue, if you would, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And he says that: "Superiorly there is an one-inch
incise wound extension and inferiorly there is a two-inch long superficial skin
extension inferior toward the back of the neck." It is reference to this cut
here, you see here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you may be blocking the view of some of the juniors
on that end. Would you point out again, please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He is referring to this cut he sees here,
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: That is that this two-inch wound superficial skin
extension?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So this is all a matter that you would associate with the
injury no. 1 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me--I'm sorry.

MR. KELBERG: Do you want to add something?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This one inch is one going to the back and this two
inches is the one going here toward the base of the neck, toward the base of
the neck here, this one, (indicating), which is actually part of
six-inch wound injury no. 2 of G-37.

MR. KELBERG: Is one of G-37, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It says--

MR. KELBERG: If I can show you the photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the--this one, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: The lower incise wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Of G-37.

MR. KELBERG: And the extension of it as seen in G-40 is--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here he says a two-inch extension here,
(indicating), going inferiorly toward the base of the neck, and this is
the one-inch extension to the back of the head.

MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say then that where he is
describing inferiorly there is a two-inch long extension that actually he
refers to injury no. 2 of G-37?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you recall, he didn't have a measurement for it in
the original protocol.

MR. KELBERG: Let me box that in blue and I will write "G-37 inj. No.
2."

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me mark that in and I will outline that so
that this is "G-40 inj. No. 1."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay, doctor. That is basically the description?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in essence, and let me hold this out, hopefully
without hitting anybody, in essence has Dr. Golden done the same thing with
regard to injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40 that he did with respect to injuries
1 and 2 of G-51, that is, he has described them as all part of one wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is he wrong?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because he has described this smaller 5/8 inch wound
exiting in the back here, (indicating). I think they are separate wounds
because you need to explain this cut abrasion which is going above the wound.

MR. KELBERG: When you say the cut abrasion above the wound, you have
been pointing--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Which would only--which is part of injury no. 1 of G-40.
You can see it here better, but I only concurred the knife was penetrating
there, rather coming out, because there had to be a separate entrance and that
could be a separate entrance sharing injury no. 2, could be a separate
entrance.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion is it a separate entrance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this a mistake on Dr. Golden's part to have
formed the opinion that he expressed in the autopsy on page 5?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and I think he changed his opinion in the
addendum.

MR. KELBERG: Is this a mistake which you consider significant to you in
forming any of your opinions on cause of death, manner of death, single-edge
knife, single perpetrator, bleeding and so forth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, because he has described the wound which you can
make those determinations possibly the one with the 5/8 inch wound and they did
not cause death because they did not injure any major vessels, so they don't
play a role in the big ticket items which we have discussed several times
before.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your knowledge of anatomy are you able to say
that Dr. Golden has accurately described the absence of a fatal injury to a
vein or an artery in that area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, because--yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because he has described accurately what happened on the
left side. If you look at the internal diagrams, he described the internal
jugular vein injury and said that the carotid artery was not injured and he has
also diagrammed them.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is--in Dr. Golden's description of the
direction, if--because I'm going to have to put this down momentarily before we
have an accident here--I want you to keep that in mind, because I'm going to
ask you with the ruler--thank you--can you basically use the ruler and again
myself to represent Mr. Goldman to give the orientation on the right side that
Dr. Golden describes for injuries numbers 1 and 2 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I would like whatever side of mine that you need to be
toward the jury box so they will be able to see.

MR. KELBERG: I would like you, if you can, to demonstrate the wound
path, the direction as described by Dr. Golden, with respect to these two
injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. He describes that this wound entered in a front to
back direction.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is injury no. 2 which is the 5/8 inch wound we
discussed and it came out here in the back, as this wound here,
(indicating), as injury no. 1, and the path in the body was two inches
without injury to the artery or vein.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could just get back into position briefly so
we can describe this for the record.

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(witness complies.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with Dr. Lakshmanan behind me and slightly to
my right and holding the ruler in his right hand, he has placed what appears to
be about three or four inches of the ruler extending from his right hand
against my neck on the right side with the ruler at a downward angle away from
my neck and the angle appearing to me to be approximately 45 degrees from the
horizontal.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor, the exit as described by Dr. Golden--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Was here in the back here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And you have pointed, for the record, to the back of the
right side of my neck?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, three o'clock.

MR. KELBERG: Whenever the Court wishes.

THE COURT: Three o'clock.

MR. KELBERG: Now, you said, doctor, that--first of all, let's ask if Dr.
Golden diagrammed either/or both of what you describe as injury no. 1 and 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Where?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In diagram 22-II.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me put up 4G again and let's see if we can
flip to--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You see, this is the diagram 22-II, left lower quadrant.
This is 2, and you can see the--this is the 5/8 inch wound here,
(indicating), and this is the wound we just discussed--

MR. KELBERG: As injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and this is the two-inch extension which is
actually going down here, (indicating), which if you look at the
photograph, it really is part of injury no. 2 of G-37.

MR. KELBERG: Before you run further, if Mr. Lynch could hand me the
marker? Let's see if we can mark these things as we go. Doctor, what you
started with was where I am right now, correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And let me circle this and I will run it out to a clear
area and this is "G"--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: --40.

MR. KELBERG: "40 inj. No. 2," correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct. That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Then you pointed to an area right there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that area in red and to a clear area. That is
"G-40 inj. No. 1."

MR. KELBERG: Is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then you pointed to a third area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is two-inch cut which goes to the base of the neck,
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And this is actually, as you described it, injury no. 2 of
G-37?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you look at the photograph, that is how it looks.

MR. KELBERG: So I'm going to write in blue out at the side "G-37 inj.
No. 2."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this is that one-inch cut which he describes as
going to the back of the neck which you can see in G-40 very well here,
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And that you associate with injury no. 1; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: There appears to be a lot of writing surrounding this area.
Can you give us an interpretation of that writing?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. This is "Sharp force, stab wound, diagonal, three
inches below the right ear canal." That is the arrow going downwards. And then
this is the a 5/8 inch wound. He has described the forked wound very clearly.

MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you here. Is this a diagram of what would be
injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that.

MR. KELBERG: And the 5/8 you have already described as the length of the
wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the 1/16 dealing with the forking end?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that.

MR. KELBERG: And this is again "G-40 inj. No. 2"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Actually all this belongs to the same wound.

MR. KELBERG: All of--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: All the handwriting there. This is the external auditory
canal "EAC."

MR. KELBERG: I will circle it so it is all connected and make another
line--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: --that way.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And this is the--this is two-inch long stab wound here,
(indicating), and this is one-inch extension. This is the "L" and "1."

MR. KELBERG: "L-1" means what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Length, one inch, and "L-2" means it is abbreviated
length, two inches.

MR. KELBERG: And the--the additional writing at the bottom was?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the L-2, two-inch extension which I interpret as
injury no. 2 of G-37.

MR. KELBERG: So that aspect goes to this over here,
(indicating)?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and these two go to injury no. 1 of G-40.

MR. KELBERG: Let me circle that in red and have it join the line up here
where we have a designation of "G-40, injury no. 1."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, has Dr. Golden accurately described what is seen in
the photographs, separate and apart from an interpretation of the correlation,
if any, between the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, but as I told you, the cut abrasion on the surface
of injury no. 1 has not been described, which is important for me to opine that
it is a separate penetration rather than an exit. That is where this cut
penetration you see--I mean, this cut abrasion. You cannot get it in an exit.
It has to be a separate penetration there.

MR. KELBERG: How is that inflicted as a separate penetration? Again, if
you could use the ruler and use me as Mr. Goldman, demonstrate for us.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: When you--as I told you, as a hypothetical, when the
threatening cut took place and we--in my hypothetical explanation, and the
knife was drawn here, (indicating), and I said a penetration could have
taken place at that point and then the sudden movement of the victim while
trying to wrestle away, the knife would come out. And then because of the
movement of the knife and the body you could get the cut abrasion which favors
that being an entrance and not an exit, because you cannot get a surface
marking on the skin from an exit.

MR. KELBERG: And so when we were doing a demonstration last week where
you instructed me to pull away from you, it is in that pulling away and the
twisting process that, in your opinion, one gets that appearance?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be one way would you get it.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. What are other potential ways you can get that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, before the perpetration itself there could have
been movement and you could get a cut abrasion and then the penetration could
have taken place, holding the person tighter, so there are different
mechanisms. But what I wanted to drive home the point, to see a surface wound
like that would favor this is a surface entrance and not an exit.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I believe the Court wishes to take a break.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-minute recess
at this time. And remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the
case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any
deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to
communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess for
fifteen minutes. All right.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter.
All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the
jurors, please.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I assume there will be no further breaks or
am I wrong?

THE COURT: Straight through to 5:00 or maybe 6:00.

MR. KELBERG: I have to teach tonight, your Honor.

THE COURT: 5:00 o'clock.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the
jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be
seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our
jury panel. And, Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: In fact, before you start, let me see counsel without the
court reporter, please.

MR. KELBERG: May I come through the well, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I think you mentioned that Dr. Golden addresses in
his addendum this relationship between injury nos. 1 and 2 of G-40; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And again, let's try another easel for a change in
perspective. Could you step down and tell us where in the addendum Dr. Golden
addresses those two particular injuries?

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, were you pointing, doctor, under subpart 6
of page 3? And Dr. Golden starts, "There is a sharp force wound on the right
side of the neck 3 inches directly below the external auditory canal." Is that
injury no. 1 or injury no. 2 as we look at it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's injury no. 2.

MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Lynch could hand me the markers again. I think they
may be--thanks.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And it goes down how far in its description of
what is injury no. 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to the last line--the line previous to the last line
on the page.

MR. KELBERG: And for that--for the record, your Honor, I'm going to
outline in red that box of information. On the right-hand side, I'll write
"G-40 inj. No. 2."

MR. KELBERG: And then this paragraph continues, doctor, in what
fashion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Page 4, no. 7 and 8.

MR. KELBERG: Now, before we flip the page, has the sentence, "This wound
connects," and let me underline the word connects, "With a sharp force wound on
the right," and I'll underline that as well. Is this sharp force wound on the
right what is described as injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: So before we turn the page, I'll write a little arrow,
"G-40 inj. No. 1." And now let me continue flipping the page.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And it goes on to say that right side of the neck 2
inches posterior, and it says that the wound is 2 inches in length, this all
referring to injury no. 1 of G-40, and says that the posterior portion presents
an incised wound 1 inch in length, which is that extension we've discussed, and
the anterior end is rounded, and then he describes that it intersects,
intersects with the transversely oriented incised wound of the front of the
neck, which is injury no. 2 of G-37, injury no. 2 of G-37.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that just briefly in red on page
4 of the protocol 0G, and I'll write "G-37 inj. No. 2." Is that correct,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Then Dr. Golden continues to describe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There's fresh hemorrhage and bruising and no major
artery or vein is severed or injured.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, does paragraph no. 8 or item 8 of this same
page also refer to injuries 1 and 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And also page 5 says, "Paragraph 2, delete" in the
original protocol.

MR. KELBERG: And is that a procedural thing for us? Mr. Lynch can put
the protocol up on the other easel and flip to page 5.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Reference to this (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, doctor. You've pointing to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is "There is fresh hemorrhage."

MR. KELBERG: And that's going to be deleted pursuant to that entry that
you just outlined in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then this opinion, is this the opinion that is being
amended in essence?

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline these two entries on page 5 of
the protocol and at the side write, "Amended by addendum, page 4"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And that's going to be items?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 7 and 8.

MR. KELBERG: I'll write "Items 7 and 8." Doctor, in your opinion, does
the description provided in the addendum on pages 3 and 4 accurately describe
those two injuries, injuries 1 and 2 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And let me then write by boxing in blue on page 4 that this
is G-40, and this is inj. No. 1; is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And then let me outline 7 and 8, and at the side, I'll
write "G-40 inj. No. 1 and no. 2." Is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And I'll just write a little red line, make a red line to
separate it from the entry below that. Doctor, is that opinion expressed in
item no. 8 in the addendum accurate in your judgment as to those two injuries,
injuries 1 and 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything further with respect to the protocol or
the addendum concerning injuries 1 and 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is a single-edged approximately 6-inch long knife
consistent with inflicting both of those injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: While we have the charts up, there was one additional chart
I did not ask you about.

MR. KELBERG: This is on board 7G, your Honor.

THE COURT: 7G. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: And the previous--the addendum I think has been marked as
4--10G--excuse me--that we were looking at. Doctor, there's a form 24 page that
is the first page of this particular board, and in the upper left-hand
quadrant, there appears to be an entry made. What does this refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This refers to the internal injuries which Dr. Golden
saw. This is sharp force injury, neck. He says then transection of the left
internal jugular vein and the left common carotid artery being intact. LCCA
stands for that. And he says the right side is within normal limits and
negative also in the front. There's no injury to the larynx.

MR. KELBERG: The injury that he is describing in the upper left
quadrant, is that injury no. 1 of G-37?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically there's no injury to the larynx like we saw on
Miss Brown Simpson.

MR. KELBERG: Does that have some bearing on the depth of that particular
penetration?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would have one meaning to that, and also it shows
that there's no injury to those structures.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that that wound that
you described as the last sharp force injury inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson
seen in I believe B-13, 16 and 18 was a deeper wound than the wound that you
described as a fatal wound, no. 3 of G-37, to Mr. Goldman's neck?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's difficult to make that kind of judgment because in
Miss Brown Simpson, the knife went across the neck up to the spine and there's
no specific depth given, whereas for the wound on the left side of the neck of
Mr. Goldman, at least a 4-inch track because it communicates with the
left--behind the left ear. So it's difficult to make that kind of conclusion.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else about this diagram that you wish to
talk about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. It just emphasizes the internal injury on the left
side and no vascular injury on the right side.

MR. KELBERG: And that injury though is a fatal one in your judgment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The left internal jugular vein injury? Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything further about injuries 1 and 2 that we
need to discuss?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: We'll just leave the protocol up and ask you if we could to
go back now to photograph G-40 and talk about, if you have not already,
additional wounds or injuries you see in that photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have a sharp force injury to the back of the right
side of the head. We have a sharp force injury to the--behind the right ear
here (indicating). We have another sharp force injury just near the back
of the right earlobe, and then there's an abrasion in the area of the skin
between injury no. 1 of G-40 and the ear, which you can see here. And G-50
shows the injuries to the ear very much better, a closer photograph of the two
sharp force injuries behind the right ear, and G-55 shows the same sharp force
injury to the back of the right side of the head. Doesn't show the cuts behind
the ear because it's--the ear being seen on the side, but it does show the
abrasion in the skin between the injury no. 1 of G-40 and the ear.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's see if we can talk about these individually.
Have you numbered them again with respect to these photographs in some
arbitrary fashion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I labeled this sharp force injury to the back side
of the right side of the head as injury no. 3.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's just stay with that. What is that sharp
force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's caused by a knife. It's 5/8 inch long and it was
situated to the right side of the back of the head.

MR. KELBERG: If you'll keep your voice up, please, doctor. In your
opinion, is this caused by a knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What kind of knife if you are able to offer an opinion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a--it could be a single edge or a double edge.

MR. KELBERG: Why are you unable to tell?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because it's an incised type wound and you can not tell
the difference.

MR. KELBERG: Is it still consistent with your 6-inch approximately long
single-edged knife blade?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The tapering tip, yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your opinion, was that sharp force injury
received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Appearance as I discussed earlier and the color.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to tell the relative positions of Mr. Goldman
and the perpetrator at the time that sharp force injury was inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Why not?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, it could be inflicted if Mr. Goldman is ducking if
the perpetrator was in the front. It could be if the perpetrator was in the
back and cut Mr. Goldman in the back during the initial other wounds which are
the back of the neck.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again using the ruler and myself to represent Mr.
Goldman, can you demonstrate these alternatives you've just described in a
general way?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Want to put down your pointer and your paper, and let's see
if Mr. Lynch can put those on the table.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If it was in the back, it could be a cut like--a cut
like this (demonstrating).

MR. KELBERG: Now, are you talking about in your scenario with the
control hold and the two superficial incised wounds? Is that about that time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And this cut could have occurred at the same time
this cut occurred in the back of the ear (indicating). They are about
the same level.

MR. KELBERG: Which--I'm sorry. Which cut, which ear?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Behind the right ear (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And you've pointed to photo G-40; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And how could that cut have been inflicted with the
perpetrator behind Mr. Goldman and this injury no. 3 to the head?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could be separate cuts, but they could have been in
the same force when--I mean the same motion which occurred.

MR. KELBERG: How--how is that done with the same motion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: With the--there's been--as I told you, all the sharp
injuries, sharp force injuries are due to a dynamic process. You have movement
of the head and movement of the blade. And if--when the head--when the knife is
in contact with the head or the head moves, you can also strike the right ear
at the same time because the wound is right here in the back
(indicating)--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Would you turn around and show the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury where that--and you're talking about this injury no. 3 in
photo G-40 is where you are going to be pointing in a moment?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. It's right here, this region (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, the witness has pointed to an
area that is slightly above the top of his right ear and to the left of that
approximately 2 inches.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Fairly.

MR. KELBERG: How fairly is fairly?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, I'm just pointing to my back of my head. So the
picture is there and it's quite--

THE COURT: It's self-explanatory.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Self-explanatory.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then there's another cut here (indicating).
So this could have been--have occurred when the perpetrator is in the back,
when the perpetrator was in the back of Mr. Goldman. And the other way it could
have happened is if the perpetrator was from the front and wielding a knife,
the head was tucked and trying to avoid the knife, cut--the back of the head
could have been cut too.

MR. KELBERG: Can you demonstrate--you tell me what to do to represent
Mr. Goldman and you be the perpetrator--how that can be inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: From wielding the knife like this and coming against
you, and you bend your neck or bend your head downwards, you can cut the head
like this right in the back (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, for the record, facing me, Dr. Lakshmanan, with
the ruler in his right hand, took several side-to-side motions as he was
talking about wielding the knife. I ducked my head in a forward and downward
direction. Dr. Lakshmanan with his right hand, holding the ruler, then came I
believe with a somewhat overhead motion in the direction of the top of my head,
and I felt some grazing of the ruler over the top of my head.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Bottom line is, you can not really tell with definite
certainty which kind of movements caused these type of wounds. But these are
some possibilities which one could hypo--opine.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that these alternatives
that you've suggested are consistent with the physical findings that you can
see from the photographs and the autopsy materials?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I believe we've lost some aspect of the
microphone that goes here. So--

THE COURT: I think it's just the wind cover.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you need your pointer back?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. If I can have my pointer.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again, not a fatal stab wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is this also shown in another photograph that gives a
closer perspective of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think g--I think--I don't--

MR. KELBERG: If I may have a moment.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't think we have it in evidence.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about that particular sharp force
injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: By the way, is this process of exposing the injury part of
the postmortem shaving that you described earlier?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I only describe three injuries under G-40 and
actually I describe the injuries in the--behind the ear in G-50, actually in
G-50.

MR. KELBERG: All right. The injuries behind the ears are more closely
shown in photograph G-50?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Tell us about those. If you can start with some numerical
designation and take us through your description.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The larger cut in the back of the right ear is injury
no. 1 in G-50, it's about three-quarters of an inch in length, and the smaller
wound in the right earlobe is quarter inch in length, and the ear has been--the
photograph has been taken of the right ear in a close-up manner so the injuries
can be perceived better.

MR. KELBERG: The ear has been moved in some manipulation to expose
this?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, using my right ear, can you demonstrate what is
being done to expose that area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this so that you can see the cut better behind the
right ear and the earlobe (demonstrating). That's what's being done
right here.

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, the doctor with his right hand
has pulled the large part of my right ear forward--in a forward direction.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what kind of injury is injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a sharp force injury by a knife.

MR. KELBERG: Are you able to determine from its appearance whether it is
a single-edged knife or could be also from a doubled-edged knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can not tell which one.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: But still consistent with the hypothesized single-edge
6-inch long approximately knife blade?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, from the tapering turn.

MR. KELBERG: Is this an antemortem injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How are you able to tell?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: From the appearance and the coloration.

MR. KELBERG: Does it play any significant role in any of the big ticket
issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further on that one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Described by him anywhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not diagrammatically.

MR. KELBERG: And addressed anywhere in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How about the next injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a smaller cut behind the right earlobe, and
that's quarter inch in length.

MR. KELBERG: Is that also due to a knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would your answers be the same about single-edged,
double-edged for that injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't tell.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that also an injury received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is that a separate injury from injury no. 1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does it play any significant role on any of the big ticket
issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Diagrammed by him?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Addressed by him in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would those be considered mistakes not to have described
and diagrammed it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: They play any significant role in your judgment on these
big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Any other injuries besides those two in G-50?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you mentioned I think some other injuries in
both 40 and 55, at least showing them to some degree, and I want to invite your
attention, is there an injury in the area of the left--I'm sorry--of the right
lower ear area?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And does that have possible significance with respect to
either or both injuries 1 and 2 as shown in photo G-50, the ear injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could have significance to the ear, to the injury
behind the right earlobe, which is injury no. 2 of G-50. What we have here in
the side of the head is a penetrating injury which went to the temporal bone,
which is the bone underlying this area of the face (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if you could turn so everybody on the jury can see
that.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This injury is right here in front of the right ear in
the earlobe area (indicating) and--

MR. KELBERG: For the--I'm sorry. For the record, your Honor, the doctor
was pointing to an area above the bottom of his ear about a third of the way up
towards the top of the ear and just adjacent to where the ear joins the face.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This injury goes for an inch deep into the--up to the
bone.

MR. KELBERG: How far, doctor? I'm sorry.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: About an inch deep up to the temporal bone and stops
there. So this injury no. 2 behind the right earlobe which is seen in G-50
could be related to this wound, but I can not exclude them from photograph as
not being separate wounds.

MR. KELBERG: What would you be able to do as the autopsy surgeon if
anything which would have allowed you to determine whether in fact there is a
relationship between this penetration to the temporal bone area and this injury
no. 2 to the right ear?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see it communicate because what you're seeing
is, because the wound goes through the earlobe like this
(indicating)--

MR. KELBERG: Could you turn--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And since this is a reflected portion of skin, you will
see a cut on the inside because of the same penetration. So it could be
related, but I can't tell from the photographs.

MR. KELBERG: And with respect to G-55, other than the injuries to the
face, are there other injuries that you have not discussed at this point that
are apparent in that photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This faint abrasion which is seen both in G-40 and in
G-55.

MR. KELBERG: Would you point it out again? I'm sorry.

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating).

THE COURT: Your Honor, the doctor on photo G-55 has pointed to an area
that appears to be midway between the bottom of the right ear and the top of
what has been marked as that injury no. 1, sharp force injury as seen in
G-40.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's just a faint abrasion which is seen between the
injury no. 1 of G-40 and the right ear. And there's no other sharp force injury
in the skin in this area, but there's a sharp force injury which was described
in the report.

MR. KELBERG: Before we get to that, how are you able to determine that
that is an abrasion rather than a sharp force injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: By the same examination I did with the other injuries;
use a magnifying glass, and you can see whether there's a split in the skin or
not. And there's no split. There's only a scrape in the skin.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have an opinion as to what source or sources could
be responsible for that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a non-specific blunt force injury and it could be
from the plant material which we have discussed before which you see in the
crime scene area, and could be one of those cut branches.

MR. KELBERG: Does it have any significance to you on any of the big
ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is this addressed by Dr. Golden in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed by him?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Is it addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Does Dr. Golden have some indication in the form of a
diagram or something in the protocol or both for that area describing something
that you do not see in these photographs; in particular G-40 and G-55?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has described a cut there which is 3/4 of an inch
long behind the right ear parallel to the sternomastoid muscle which is not
seen in the photographs.

MR. KELBERG: While we've got the photos up, which diagram did Dr. Golden
use to show that particular--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think it's 22-I or II I think.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, this is board 4-G.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here (indicating). It's on 22-I.

MR. KELBERG: All right. And, doctor, the location where Dr. Golden has
made that what appears to be a vertical line--do you see that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that the same location in general terms anatomically as
the location where you see what you describe as an abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: More of the same anatomical area.

MR. KELBERG: Is it diagrammed though in the positional aspect the same
as the abrasion appears in the photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the measurement--did you try and measure from the
life-size photo that faint abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did. I got it as 1-1/8 inch in length.

MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Golden describes a superficial cut as how long?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Three-quarters of an inch.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, can the process of photographic
measurement account for the difference between your measurement and that of Dr.
Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: To some extent, it can. But the injury you see is an
abrasion and not a cut.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, is it a mistake for Dr. Golden to have
concluded, if he is looking at what you describe as this abrasion, to describe
it as a cut?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it of any significance on any of the big ticket
questions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, let me, if I could for the record, circle in
red that area including the written entry on form 22-I, and I'll write g--

MR. KELBERG: Any other diagram of that particular injury by Dr.
Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And does he include an description of this in the
protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he does.

MR. KELBERG: Where, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's on page--it's on the page 4 or 5 I think of the
main protocol.

MR. KELBERG: 4 or 5 of the main protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let's see if we can find it.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually it's page 6. Page 6, no. 3.

MR. KELBERG: I'm going to box that on page 6 of the protocol. I'll write
"G-55." And this is inj. No. 6?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No. 7 actually because we discussed no. 7--no. 7 is
a faint abrasion in the--in the--so it would correspond in the protocol to
injury no. 7.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Injury no. 7, and I'll write "Cut" in quotation
marks rather than "Abrasion." Is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's--that would be a correct statement.

MR. KELBERG: Let me just make sure, doctor, that we have--yes. We have
it correctly identified in form 22. Any significance to this description in
your judgment and evaluating any of the big ticket issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: But a mistake nonetheless?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about this one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further.

MR. KELBERG: All right. If we could put the photos back up then. Now,
doctor, other than the faint abrasion, have we covered G-40--I'm sorry. With
the faint abrasion, have we covered all the injuries in G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, we have.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, injuries no. 1 and 2 that you've identified
from G-50 are seen to some extent in photo G-40; is that accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: But the ear is in the normal position in G-40; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything further with respect to photograph G-50
as to any finding or injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, except that the facial injuries, some of them are
seen here which we're going to discuss later.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let me just finish then with--you described these as
injuries 1 and 2 of G-50; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And you indicated they were not addressed in the original
protocol?

MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that Dr. Golden's opinion that this
is a nonfatal stab wound is accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, where is it diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's diagrammed in 22-II.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it diagrammed, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And what if any--I'm sorry. What if anything has Dr. Golden
written concerning that particular injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Says stab wound right here, lobe, one and a quarter
inches right to left depth, and he has described the one-inch length and the
forked ends, both ends, and he--the--he also indicates that the stab wound went
from the ear to the temporal bone. So this whole description and this arrow
here in the right side of the head would correspond to injury no. 6 of G-55
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that area that you've just pointed to,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And up in the upper left-hand corner, I'll write "G-55" and
underneath that "inj. No. 6."

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does that accurately in shorthand form diagram and
describe that particular injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further about that one?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are we done then with respect to all injuries on
all of the photographs of our exhibit 358 with the exception of the facial
injuries as seen in photographs G-55 and G-50?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another small board of photographs. May
this be marked as exhibit 360? It appears to have a title "Sharp force injuries
and blunt force trauma to head of Mr. Goldman."

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 360 for id = board of photos)

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, on this particular exhibit, we have two
photographs, one of which appears to have the designation G-48 and another that
has a designation of G-49. Can we start with G-49, the one to the right, and
tell us what if anything of significance you see in that photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-49 is the back of the head of Mr. Goldman and shows a
superficial quarter inch cut to the back of the head.

MR. KELBERG: Now, where--first of all, using yourself--or why don't you
use me. Would you point out where that area of the head is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Somewhere here in this region (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. If you'll--

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And the doctor is pointing to what feels like slightly to
the left of the midline of my head up near the top of my head.

THE COURT: Near the top of your head?

MR. KELBERG: Well, at least it feels that way. I don't know. Maybe I
have a bad sense of--

THE COURT: It looks towards the back of the head to me.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in relation--can you hold that pointer
wherever you had it and also point to the injury to the back of the head or the
head somewhere that's seen in G-40, injury no. 3 of G-40?

MR. KELBERG: And as long as we've got me in this position, do you see a
second injury in G-49?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You see it left of it and slightly to the front of
it. In this region here, you have am abrasion contusion, which is a scrape
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And so those are the three injuries to the head in your
review of the autopsy materials in Mr. Goldman that were identified?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You have a cut to the back side of the right side
of the head which you have discussed, a smaller cut now which I've just
discussed here, and then you have abrasion contusion to the left side of the
head, which is actually seen better in G-48.

MR. KELBERG: Let's talk then first of all about the first injury that's
seen in G-49 as you've described it. A sharp force injury that you described as
a cut?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: The type of instrument to inflict that kind of injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be a single-edged or a doubled-edged knife.

MR. KELBERG: And again, the hypothetical, single edge, 6-inch long
approximate blade would be consistent with doing that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah, the tip of it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to tell from that injury the relative
positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that injury was
received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I will not be able to do that.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is it the same situation as you demonstrated with
me regarding alternatives, for example, for the injury that's seen in G-40 to
the head?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this also an antemortem, that is before death
injury?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden--excuse me--Dr. Golden address this in the
protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Diagram it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: In the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. No. No addendum.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason it should be?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No need to.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the--nonfatal I gather?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Nonfatal.

MR. KELBERG: The other injury--can you give us an orientation, G-48,
what we're actually looking at there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You're looking at the top of the left side of the head.
You can see the nose here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Just stop if you would, please. The nose is where,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Here, in the lower part of the photograph here
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: In the lower left corner, your Honor, of the photograph
where the light color meets a border that appears to be a lightish blue color
in the photograph.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Then you can see the eyebrow here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And the doctor has with the pointer made a horizontal
tracing of a small area from the left margin of the skin towards the center of
the skin area reflected or shown in that photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You also see the hair in the top of the head falling on
the forehead here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And that area is where in the photograph--in the lower part
of the photograph, the hair seems to end over the skin area; is that correct,
doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And you can see the left earlobe here
(indicating). I mean ear, not earlobe, portion of the upper part of the
left ear on the right side of the photograph.

MR. KELBERG: Left ear on the right side of the photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And that is where the skin apparently comes
photographically in contact with the hair below the injury that's shown in the
center of the photograph; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the injury is above the left ear on the left
side of the top of the head. And to show it on my head, it will be somewhere in
this region (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Again, on the left side, your Honor, and perhaps four
inches above the top of the ear?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what kind of injury is that again?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a blunt force injury. It's an abrasion
contusion. That is you have a scrape and underlying bruising of the skin.

MR. KELBERG: And do you have an opinion as to the potential source or
sources for that contusion abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a blunt force injury and could be from a rough
surface. There are several areas in the crime scene photograph which could
account for that.

MR. KELBERG: We may come back to that then when we look at the other
blunt force trauma injuries. Again, doctor, all of these injuries or both of
these injuries in 49 and the one in 48 are made apparent due to shaving,
postmortem shaving at the Coroner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would your answers about nonfatal antemortem be the
same for this contusion abrasion as they've been for the sharp force injury no.
1 of G-49?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden describe either of the injuries seen in 49
in the protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Both of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram both of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Does he address either of them in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason he should have?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He need not have because he has described them
accurately.

MR. KELBERG: The last thing about the abrasion contusion, is there
anything about it which allows you to give an opinion concerning the relative
positions of Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator at the time that injury was
received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would not be able to give that--an opinion on that.

MR. KELBERG: For the same reasons?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further just about the photographs and what they
show regarding those injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else.

MR. KELBERG: If we can just identify in the diagram and the protocols
where these two injuries to the head are addressed and diagrammed.

MR. KELBERG: I'll write "G-49." And then item 3 refers to what is seen
in both G-49 and G-48?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And let me outline that including the opinion, and I'll
write at the side "G-49" and "G-48." Doctor, in your opinion, are those
descriptions by Dr. Golden of each of those injuries accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is his opinion that's expressed with respect to that
contusion abrasion accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And now, where is it diagrammed, either one of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 20F.

MR. KELBERG: 20F?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, fill us in, if you would please, for each.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the cut, quarter-inch cut in the back of the
head which is seen in G-49 and only seen in G-49. It says "Superficial skin
cut, quarter-inch deep," and "No SGH" means no subgaleal hemorrhage.

MR. KELBERG: What is subgaleal hemorrhage?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the deeper part of the scalp below the galea,
G-A-L-E-A.

MR. KELBERG: What is the significance if any of the observation that
there is no such hemorrhage?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would signify that this is a superficial cut and
not a deep cut in the scalp.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that area that you've just
outlined in the lower right quadrant of form 20F from board 6G of our
collective set 357, and I'll write "G-49" in blue.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then we have the quarter-inch red brown abrasion
with skin bruising showing the injury in G-48.

MR. KELBERG: And that one is also seen in G-49?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me outline that entire area. Doctor, does
this word here that appears to be between the diagram of the abrasion and the
circled area for the sharp force injury refer to that abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what is that word if you can--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Ovoid. It says ovoid, o-v-o-I-d.

MR. KELBERG: What does ovoid mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's oval shape, slightly oval shape.

MR. KELBERG: And is that a reference to the form of the abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline this area in the same lower quadrant of 20F,
and I'll write "G-48, G-49." Now, doctor, as long as we have this board up,
there appears to be an additional entry with some handwriting in that same
diagram. What does that refer to if anything?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the sharp force injury which we saw in G-40 or
55, the one in the back of the head.

MR. KELBERG: Are you talking about injury no. 3, I think it's G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. G-40.

MR. KELBERG: Let me just get that board so you're certain.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That refers to injury in G-40, this one
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. What has Dr. Golden indicated and diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has indicated that it's a sharp force injury, right
posterior parietal, back to front.

MR. KELBERG: What does the back to front mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is, the wound is traversing back to front.

MR. KELBERG: From the back of the body to the front of the body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And it's a 5/8 inch cut. Depth is quarter-inch to
3/8 inch of the scalp. So this whole thing would reflect to sharp force injury
no. 3 in G-40. I mean--G-40.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this area where I'm pointing out a diagram of
some form used by Dr. Golden concerning that injury no. 3?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what is he intending to depict by that diagram?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He shows the higher magnification of the wound and he
also describes a smaller cut in the upper margin there.

MR. KELBERG: Let me outline that entire area in red, and I'll then write
"G-40 inj. No. 3." Doctor, from your review of all the materials, are these
three the three and only three injuries to the head of Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further with respect to this diagram?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing further.

MR. KELBERG: Let's take this down if we could and take the protocol
down.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have description here of the same injury if you want
to--

MR. KELBERG: Oh, okay. Sure. As long as we've got the page, why don't we
finish this up. There is some reference in the autopsy protocol to that injury
no. 3 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where is it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's right here, sharp force injuries of the scalp, the
scalp is shaved postmortem, the whole no. 1 up to the "Opinion."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that description that is before the two lines for
"Opinion," is that an accurate description of injury no. 3 of G-40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is the opinion that is offered there one which in your
judgment an opinion is accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me circle that in red, and up at the
left-hand border, I'll write "G-40 inj. No. 3." Is there anything further
diagrammatically or in the protocol concerning any of these three head
injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not that I recall at this time.

MR. KELBERG: Anything in the addendum regarding any of the three we have
not discussed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Let's take this down then. And before we get to
that one photograph with respect to the facial injuries, your Honor, I have
another series of photographs that bears the title of "Blunt force trauma,
sharp force injury and defensive wounds to the left arm, left and right hands
of Mr. Goldman." May this be marked as exhibit 361?

THE COURT: Yes. People's 361.

(Peo's 361 for id = board of photos)

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, these are photographs that you have
reviewed in the course of your examination of the autopsy materials?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And I also reviewed one is to one photographs.

MR. KELBERG: I was going to ask you, you reviewed the life-size
photographs for each of these photos?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And did you also see the photos in this dimension, but in
an uncropped fashion? Obviously some of these have been cropped, narrowed and
so forth to conform to the order of the Court.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And also--

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with this exhibit, I have two additional
photographs which have designations on the back of the photographs. One is--has
a "34" written on the back. And for the record, I'm going to write the letter
"G" in the red on the back of that, and I would ask that that be marked as
361-A. And I will also write the designation of "Exh. 361-A" in the lower
right-hand corner. And then I have a very small photograph that appears to show
one hand and wrist area that has "G-25" written on the back, and I'll ask that
this be marked as exhibit 361-B, and I'll write that same designation in the
lower right-hand corner on the back of that photo.

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 361-A and B for id = 2 photographs)

THE COURT: And I take it you've shown those to Mr. Shapiro?

MR. KELBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to talk first of all about the hands as
shown in a series of photographs, G-28, G-35, G-26, G-29 and G-32 as well as
our two additional photographs.

MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, I don't know--does the court clerk have
little pins that I might be able to use to stick these two photographs--

THE COURT: Poster pins? Why don't you take some off of my bulletin
board.

MR. KELBERG: As long as we get into the discussion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you talked last week about something called
defensive wounds; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: And in looking at all of these photographs of Mr. Goldman's
hands, did you examine them in particular to look for evidence of defensive
wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Did you find evidence of defensive wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Let's start if we could, please, with the right hand, and
the photographs that appear to reflect or represent the right hand are on the
right-hand end of this exhibit 361, G-35 and G-32; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And also, this individual photograph which hopefully we
will be able to put up alongside G-35 which is G-34; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I think the clerk has--I'm sorry?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District
Attorneys.)

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Let's see which is better. We'll try the pins.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let's start then with 35 and what is also
34. What are we looking at in those two photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have evidence of two sharp force injuries. One is a
cut in the palm of the hand between the right middle finger and right index
finger web. It's right in the base of those two fingers. That's one cut. The
other cut is in the palm of the hand near the base of the right thumb, and this
is called the--it's like a t-shaped wound here which--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. What shape, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A t or a y-shaped wound.

MR. KELBERG: Y or t-shaped wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes. No. 165, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: So you have two sharp force injuries, and what you see
is--are we calling this G-30?

MR. KELBERG: That is G-34. Let me get behind here and just prop it out a
little bit so the ladies and gentlemen of the jury can see it.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-34 shows the same sharp force injury which you see in
the web here in a better manner because the fingers have been opened up so you
can see the injury better and you can also see the characteristics of the
wound.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Fairtlough tells me this is translucent on
the part that extends. I don't think it causes any concern and the Court's
indication conforms with mine. So we'll leave it as is.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, are these two injuries--and by the
way, have you designated them arbitrarily with numbers?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. I called the one to the web as injury no. 1 and I
called the one to the base of the thumb as injury no. 2.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, is each of those sharp force
injuries what you would call a defensive wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In what manner in your opinion should they be considered
defensive wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They would be called as defensive wounds because the
victim obviously kept his hand open and tried to grab the knife or tried to
defend himself from a knife thrust which was being directed against some part
of his body to prevent the knife striking the body. So one option could be that
he tried to grab the knife or block the penetration, and the other--the other
option is, without grabbing, just kind of blocking maneuver.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you use the ruler, and you tell me what to do
as if I'm Mr. Goldman. What is it that you have been talking about which would
result in these kinds of defensive wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: See, one is a y-shaped wound at the base of the thumb.
The other is a cut in the web between the index and middle finger
(indicating). If you are Mr. Goldman, if the knife--

MR. KELBERG: Why don't you demonstrate if you can, please, doctor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we're going to object to this as being pure
speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may continue, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If I'm trying to stab you here, you bring your hand and
try to hold the knife. You try to, but you won't be able to hold
(demonstrating)--if you held the knife, you would have other cuts in the
other fingers, and you don't have that. So it would be--though it could be a
maneuver towards that, it would be most likely a blocking type of situation.

MR. KELBERG: And as a blocking situation, how are those injuries
inflicted?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: With the knife tip cutting the skin here
(indicating). The other option is, when the knife is being wielded, you
could have a cut in the hand without it necessarily having been a puncture type
wound.

MR. KELBERG: And that would be injury no. 1 that you're talking
about--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: --as seen in both of the photographs G-35 and G-34?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Both injury no. 1 and 2.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, from the appearance of injury no. 1, would you
describe those besides being defensive wounds, as incised wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In the sense that their depth is less than the length on
the surface of the body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: As a result of being incised wounds, can you distinguish as
to whether or not this is inflicted with a single-edged knife or a double-edged
knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't.

MR. KELBERG: But is it still your opinion that both of these are
consistent with being inflicted with this hypothetical approximately 6-inch
long blade single-edged knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: With a tapering tip, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And when you say "Tapering tip," meaning getting narrower
at the tip of the knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion and as you've described, are both
of those defensive wounds antemortem, that is inflicted before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do either of them play any significant role in cause of
death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Or in any of the other big ticket questions that you've
been talking about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Can you tell from this information whether they were
received at or about the same time, that is as part of the same thrust of the
knife or whether they resulted from individual thrusts or wields of the
knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would favor individual thrusts.

MR. KELBERG: Why is that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because they're separate location, different appearance.
And as I pointed out, if the knife was really held, I would expect to see more
cuts in the other parts of the palm of the hand, which we don't have. We have
two localized cuts to the palm of the hand, one near the base of the thumb and
one near the web between the index and middle finger.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Where in the photo would you expect to see these
additional cuts if in fact the hand closed on the knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You would see it in other fingers.

MR. KELBERG: Can you point out on the photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Depending on how the knife is held, you could have it in
the palmar surface of these fingers, of this part of the thumb
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, the doctor was indicating
the middle finger.

MR. KELBERG: And was it also the index finger, doctor, that you were
pointing to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Index and middle finger of the thumb also.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Anything further about those two defensive
wounds regarding their nature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else specific that I can talk about at this
point.

MR. KELBERG: Did Dr. Golden describe them in the original protocol?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Did he diagram either of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. KELBERG: Both of them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is either addressed in the addendum?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Any reason they should have been?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They need not have been addressed because they have been
described fairly accurate.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Fairly accurate?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I mean accurate.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there any additional injuries you see to the
palm area of the right hand as seen in either of those two photographs, G-35 or
G-34?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Anything further you wish to discuss at this point
regarding those two photographs?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Then let's move if we could, doctor, to the bottom
photograph, G-32, the right wrist, the hand. And this is showing now the back
of the hand and the wrist; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do there appear to be a number of findings in that
photograph?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Had you numbered these findings again arbitrarily by injury
nos. 1 through whatever?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what's the whatever end?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I numbered them starting from the abrasion here and I
numbered them through no. 12.

MR. KELBERG: Why don't you take us through just a generalized overview
of what each of the injuries you see in that hand depiction, wrist depiction of
photograph G-32 shows.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have an abrasion to the ulnar aspect of the right
wrist. You have an abrasion to the back of the right wrist here
(indicating). You have a contusion, a bruising of the knuckle of the
base of the right middle finger. You have a linear abrasion in the dorsum of
the proximal portion of the base of the right index finger.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that's a mouthful. Dorsum is still the back?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Back of the right index finger.

MR. KELBERG: And in lay terms, the location is?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Near the base of the right index finger.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You also have a small abrasion adjacent to it. You have
a contusion in the outer--I mean the ulnar aspect of the index finger near the
abrasion I just described. There's also a scraping of the nail evident on the
index finger. In the middle finger, you have an abrasion and contusion in the
proximal interphalangeal area. See, each finger has three small pieces of bone
called the phalanges, and this is located in the joint between the first and
second phalanges here and the middle finger.

MR. KELBERG: Can you point that out for the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury so they will be able to see, doctor? You want to do it with my hand? And
I've got a few ink stains on it, but--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is the index finger. You see the abrasion right
here. You have an abra--you have a contusion in this aspect of the index
finger, and on the middle finger, you have an abrasion here, and this overlies
a contusion (indicating). And what I meant by phalanges are 1, 2 and 3,
the three bones in the finger, and the joints are the interphalangeal joints.
So what you have here is a scrape and bruising of the back of the proximal
interphalangeal joint.

MR. KELBERG: "Proximal" is just a fancy way of saying it's the part
that's closer to the hand itself?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And "Distal" is the opposite, meaning it's further away?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And of course, you do have a scraping of the nail here
which is seen in the photograph. Then just under this abrasion bruise, you also
have a smaller abrasion in the back of the right middle finger
(indicating). The right ring finger shows a similar abrasion contusion
over the proximal phalanx, same area as the middle finger, and you have a
smaller abrasion here in the proximal interphalangeal joint of the middle
finger. So you have several areas of blunt force injury to the back of the
hand. And I've already described the other injuries in the wrist area. And I've
now put them arbitrarily as 1 through 12 and so that we can correlate the
description of these injuries with the diagram and the protocol and--

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is each of injuries 1 through 12 an injury that in
your opinion was received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All antemortem?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And all the result of blunt force trauma?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are any of them in your opinion significant on the issue of
cause of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are any of them of significance to you in the area of
defensive action by Mr. Goldman to avoid his attacker?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He was trying to back away from the wielding
knife.

MR. KELBERG: What leads you to form an opinion that what is shown in
that photograph regarding the back of the hand indicates that Mr. Goldman was
trying to back away from an attacker who was coming at him with a wielding
knife, as you indicated for the record, with a side-to-side motion in front of
your body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because of the nature of the appearance of the injuries.
The abrasion contusions would indicate that this hand--there are two issues
here. One, you don't see any cuts in the back of the hand. The cuts are all on
the front of the right side of the hand.

MR. KELBERG: What's the significance of that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That means the back of the hand was not coming in
contact with the sharp force like the front of the hand. And that would
also--and also, the back of the hand shows blunt force injuries, which are
abrasion contusions, which can be explained by the surroundings which you
can--which we saw in the crime scene photographs. There are certain of the
surroundings that can account for these types of injuries.

MR. KELBERG: We're going to break this down a bit if we could, doctor.
First of all, in saying that you see no cuts to the back of the hand and you
see the two defensive wounds to the palm surface of the hand, is that of
significance to you in evaluating whether Mr. Goldman ever closed his hand into
a fist as if to deliver a punch to his assailant?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would favor my opinion that the hand was probably
kept open rather than clenched because if he had kept the hand clenched, he
would have got some cuts in the back of the hand, which I don't see here in the
photographs or the description.

MR. KELBERG: Why would you have expected the back of the hand to show
cuts if in fact Mr. Goldman had closed his hand into a fist in an effort to
deliver a blow to his assailant?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One, he'll be getting closer to the assailant who is
having a wielding knife, which is obvious from the sharp force injuries, and
would have resulted in cuts to the back of the hand too because he will be more
in a proximal or a closer situation to the assailant.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate, if I take on the role of Mr.
Goldman and you're the knife-wielding assailant, in your experience, is the
normal human reaction to attempt to avoid the wielding knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: If someone attempts to deliver a blow by use of a fist to
the perpetrator in a manner such as I'm doing now with my right hand closed in
a fist, your Honor, and approaching Dr. Lakshmanan, representing the assailant
(indicating), would that take me further away from danger or in your
opinion bring me closer to the danger?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would bring me--it would bring the--you closer to
danger because I'm wielding a knife like this (indicating), and if you
bring your closed fist towards me, you're going to get cuts in your forearms,
back of the hand, depending on where the knife is in location to the moving arm
of yours.

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor, I moved forward again as I
indicated before, but Dr. Lakshmanan moved closer to me with his right hand
extended again waving in a side-to-side manner as if wielding a knife.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, that is one of the bases for your opinion that
Mr. Goldman did not in fact close his hand into a fist to deliver a punch to
the assailant; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is no. 1. And no. 2, also, the appearance of the
injuries which you see, if you take them in collectively and also individually,
especially the injuries to the back of the knuckles, they all have abrasion
contusions, which would favor a blunt force which has a rough surface. And we
have certain structures in the environment in Bundy which will explain these
injuries which would be more consistent with an open hand trying to avoid a
knife and backing of and striking the structures rather than a closed hand
attacking the assailant with a wielding knife.

MR. KELBERG: And I'm going to get the photographs out of the
environmental surroundings. But, doctor, in your review of this material before
testifying, did you review, among other pieces of information, literature from
a sports medicine textbook concerning boxing injuries to the hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I just looked at what kind of injuries seen in boxing
and I did review some information on that.

MR. KELBERG: Was that information of any significance to you along with
these other matters you've already described in assessing whether the grouping
or pattern of injuries or absence of injuries in certain locations supported
your opinion that Mr. Goldman did not close his fist--did not close his hand
into a fist in an effort to deliver a blow to the perpetrator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That supported my opinion--

MR. KELBERG: Why is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if you have a closed fist and this was--let's
assume this bruise which is in the knuckle was from a closed fist--I've already
explained there are no cuts on the back of the hand--and this bruise in a
closed fist was the result of Mr. Goldman closing his fist and trying to give a
punch. The problem is, you don't have other injuries in the adjoining knuckles,
because usually in a closed fist type of boxing situation, you'll have other
knuckles also affected, which is not present, no. 1. And no. 2, the injuries
here, the abrasion contusions do not fit that kind of scenario because this
kind of abrasion contusion you get more with a rough surface like the--one of
the items which comes right staring at my face is the bark of the tree which
you have there, which is in an enclosed environment I discussed on Friday or
Thursday I think, the enclosed space in which this attack did take place.

MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention then to the board of
photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, we've left the photograph of the back
of the hand so that everyone can follow your explanation. Would you show us
what it is about the environmental surroundings of Mr. Goldman's body that in
your opinion correlates with the nature of the abrasion contusions to the back
of the hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For that, once you go back to this environment we have,
we have the tree here. We have this sapling to support wooden--I think it's a
wooden support beam here which supports this plant (indicating). There's
not much distance between all these structures. The tree and the side railing
you see in the back here, there's only about within a foot, and the tree stump
you see here is also pretty close to this tree. There's not much distance
between the sapling and this tree nor is there much distance--actually, from
this side railing to the walkway, which is a little more on this side of crime
scene 1, is only about a couple of feet. So what I'm trying to say is, if Mr.
Goldman was--assuming the hypothetical, was situated right between the sapling
and the tree and you have somebody wielding a knife and you're backing off,
your hand is going to be banging against this rough surface. And if you--I ran
my hand myself along the bark of this tree. It's pretty rough. At the same
time, it's a hard surface, and I would expect to see these kind of abrasions
contusions can occur from that kind of blunt force with an open hand striking
that kind of environment in my opinion.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, is the human body the kind of
rough surface that would result in not just a contusion, but an abrasion
contusion to the part of the fist or hand in contact with the human body as the
blow is delivered?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not this type of abrasion contusion. And you won't get
an abrasion. You'll get more of a contusion when you strike a human body.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the location of the abrasion within each of the
contusions of significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. They seem to be localized in the center of the
contusion which would go along with this kind of environment
(indicating) rather than what you just also brought up in your
hypothetical.

MR. KELBERG: When you say "In the center of the contusion," would that
be the area that is in the direct contact with whatever the rough surface is
that the hand is coming in contact with?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Like in the bark of the tree, there are uneven
elevations and depressions. So the abrasion would be caused by the rough
elevated areas of the bark rather than the depressed areas of the bark.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I think you indicate--you may have misspoken
one word, but did you run your hand, the palm of your hand over the surface of
the tree shown in S1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Did you also run your hand over the surface of the sapling
shown in CS1, both of the same exhibit board 349?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did. And I also ran my hand over the--each of
the--some of these bars here. You do have some irregularities. Even though it's
a painted smooth type of metal railing, there are irregularities of the surface
either due to dirt when the metal was painted or whatever the reason, there are
some irregularities, and that would explain an injury which I have later in the
left hand when we discuss it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are there also smooth areas of those bars?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, there are.

MR. KELBERG: If the hand like the right hand that shows the
contusion--would you point to the one that's just a contusion without an
abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the knuckle over the middle finger right here
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And does that have an injury number just so we can--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The injury number for that is no. 3 of G-32. It's
over the right middle finger. I gave it injury no. 3 of G-32.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that a contusion which in your judgment could be
caused by Mr. Goldman, in flailing back with his right hand, that hand coming
in contact with a smooth area of one of those bars?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could very well be.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One more point you want to make is, then the question
that can arise is, why didn't the rest of the finger get contusion? You have
space between the bar. There is about a 4- or 5-inch space between the bar. So
what I'm trying to drive at is, even though the hand is coming into contact
with a particular bar, the rest of the hand need not have come in contact with
the next bar. There's a couple of inches between each of those bars. I think
it's about 4-1/2 inches between each of those bars if you go and measure
approximately.

MR. KELBERG: And did you do that, doctor, when you were there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is that therefore the pattern, if you will? Looking
at all of these injuries to the back of the hand, in your judgment, is that
grouping of injuries then consistent with this flailing, backing away from the
attacker rather than an effort by Mr. Goldman to throw a punch in the direction
of the assailant coming towards him with a knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. And of course, my--one of the strongest
reinforcing--reinforcing points is the cuts being to the palm of the hand,
which would indicate that the hand was probably kept open and not closed,
because I don't see any cuts in both of the hands like the ones you see in the
palm of the hands in both the hands.

MR. KELBERG: You don't see cuts on the back of the hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, and is that consistent with your experience of what
would be the expected defensive reaction on the part of a human being who is
facing an impending assault with a knife-wielding assailant?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else for our present purposes that we
need to describe with these photographs, the crime scene photographs and the
injuries as seen to the right hand, the back of the right hand in photograph
G-42?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Let me put this board back then. I think before we go into
the protocols and so forth, doctor, why don't we finish with the left hand and
cover then all of the injuries if we can or as much as possible before we quit
for the end of the day the hands before we then go to the protocols and
diagrams and so forth. So can we start then with the left-hand? Photos we have
appear to be G-28, G-29, G-26 and G-25, which I'm going to pin between photos
G-26 and G-29 on the board. Let's start if we could, doctor, with 28 and 29.
What do each of these photographs show?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 28 shows the palm of the left hand and you also see a
portion of the thumb. The principal injuries you see in G-28 are a cut to the
palm of the hand near the base of the little finger, a cut to the base of the
thumb. You also see an abrasion to the tip of the thumb and you also see a
linear abrasion to the base of the thumb here. And these are the principal
injuries you can see in G-28 photograph.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you numbered these again arbitrarily?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have. And we can go into details if you want now
or later.

MR. KELBERG: Why don't we do that later. I just want to be sure. You've
numbered these four injuries arbitrarily 1 through 4?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 1 through 3, and I've described the--this injury near
the base of the little finger under G-29 (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. And that's our next photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why don't we then have you discuss, if you would, please,
the findings of that photograph.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: G-29 shows a portion of the sharp force injury to the
base of the thumb, which is a cut, and you see the cut to the base of the--into
the palm near the base of the little finger, but you also see abrasions to the
front of the little finger here and the middle finger in its distal aspect,
that is the part of the middle finger away from the hand. So these are
non-specific blunt force type injuries and this is a sharp force injury here
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Where is that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The one to the palm of the hand at the base of the
little finger.

MR. KELBERG: Is that a description in general terms, doctor, of all of
the findings of photograph G-29?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, taking these two photographs together, would
you describe all of these injuries as evidence of defensive wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are they of significance to you, their location and
appearance, in forming an opinion as to how they may have been received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The--the--the palmar cuts could be the same way the
palmar cuts of the right hand. You have a cut to the palm of the left hand here
and the base of the thumb, which could be the same mechanisms I described by
the hand being used to avoid a penetrating thrust to a part of the body. Could
be from the wielding of the hand being interposed to protect the body against
the wielding knife. There are numerous other ways it can happen, but I just
gave you some examples. And the abrasion itself, this abrasion is on the little
finger is--looks as though the abrasion, the skin has been peeled off or shaved
off in a superficial part. And this could be from just scraping of the finger
against a rough surface, but it could also be scraping of the finger against
the blunt edge of a knife.

MR. KELBERG: How does that happen, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because if a blunt end of the knife is scraped against
the skin, you can get this kind of linear scraping of the skin with a peeling
of a flap. But it could be from other mechanisms like rubbing against a rough
surface with the skin being peeled off in that manner.

MR. KELBERG: Would the ground be considered a rough surface?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It could be.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if it is a blunt end of a knife, would that mean a
single-edged knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Especially if we take this in conjunction with this
cut to the hand, there could be an attempt at the grabbing of the knife at this
point like this (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, could you use the ruler--it's to your left--and
demonstrate either using my hand or yours? And if you'll face the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury so they can see.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Like this with the blunt edge here and the sharp edge
cutting like this, and you're trying to get it, and you can get the scraping of
the skin that way (demonstrating).

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor--

MR. KELBERG: Could you do that slowly, doctor, hold--

DR. LAKSHMANAN:(demonstrating).

MR. KELBERG: The doctor with his right hand has placed about the upper 2
inches of the ruler where it appears to be near the area of the ring and little
finger of his left hand with those two fingers curled somewhat, but not curled
around the ruler.

MR. KELBERG: And then, doctor, what did you do?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other thing is, the knife is also turning and the
skin gets scraped like this, and that's why you're getting the peeling of the
skin here, here (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: And for the record, the doctor turned the knife so that the
edge in contact with those two fingers was coming or rubbing or scraping,
whatever the term may be, across those two fingers as it has been coming free
from the area of the hand.

THE COURT: Yes.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is one way it could have been caused.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your opinion, from observing all of
these--these two photographs and reviewing any material, in your opinion, were
all of these defensive wounds received before death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do any of them play any significance on the issue of cause
of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, given the nature of that, those findings of
defensive wounds, do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Goldman closed his
left hand in a fist-like action as if to deliver a blow?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: For the same reasons I gave before. If you look at the
back of the hand in G-26--should we describe them briefly or--

MR. KELBERG: All right. Why don't we do that.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. In G-26, is the back of the left hand, you have an
abrasion of the left lower forearm. You have a contusion of the base of the
left hand here (indicating). But what is important is, you have a
punctate, small abrasion middle of the contusion. And this important to
remember. There's a linear abrasion here. And the back of the left hand shows
an abrasion to the knuckle of the middle finger, an abrasion injury to the base
of the index finger, an abrasion contusion to the proximal joint,
interphalangeal joint of the index finger here, and there's a smaller abrasion
distal to it. And if you look at the back of the left hand, you don't see any
cuts. Just like the one in the right hand, you don't see any cuts. The only
cuts are to the front of the hand, which again favors an opinion that the hand
was probably not clenched or only the front of the hand came in contact with
the knife. And the injuries again here (indicating) are non-specific
blunt force trauma which can be explained by the environment, which would favor
an open hand flailing away against a wielding knife and hitting those objects
which I just described in crime scene photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I was going to ask you, are those same findings,
the rough surface of the tree, the rough surface of some of the bars and so
forth, the sapling and the support stake for the sapling, are those the kinds
of items which in your opinion are consistent with Mr. Goldman's back of his
left hand in a flailing action coming in contact with, resulting in these blunt
force trauma injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be my opinion.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is the location--you mentioned this contusion
on photograph G-26 near the area where the hand joins the wrist as having a
punctate abrasion on it. Is the location of that contusion of some significance
in forming an opinion as to whether it was caused by a striking action, that is
the fist being clenched to deliver a blow?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The location is more towards the wrist area, but the
appearance of the injuries would be more consistent with hitting against a
blunt smooth surfaced object with a rough random irregularity like in the metal
bar, which I felt the surface, you have certain areas that could be rough, but
mostly smooth. And one of the elevations of such a bar could have caused the
injury. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's one of the
possibilities rather than the wrist coming in contact through a closed fist
causing a punch, because if you throw a punch, you'll get the injuries more to
the back of the phalanges and knuckles rather than the wrist unless it was an
improperly thrown punch.

MR. KELBERG: Do you see--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And then you can't explain the abrasion there.

MR. KELBERG: You cannot explain the abrasion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: By that scenario.

MR. KELBERG: The human body doesn't have that kind of rough surface that
would translate into a punctate abrasion on top of the contusion?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it also be your opinion--based upon what
you told us a moment ago regarding the unnatural aspect of a victim throwing a
punch to bring the victim closer to an attacking--a knife-wielding assailant,
would your answers be the same as to why in your opinion Mr. Goldman did not
have his left hand clenched in a fist to throw a punch?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That would be my opinion for the various reasons I've
already discussed. But one of the important things is, you have cuts in the
front of the hand and you don't have any cuts on the back of the hand. And to
me, that is significant.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you able to tell from reviewing all of these
hand photographs as to the relative positions of Mr. Goldman and the attacker?
And by that, I mean, for example, can you tell whether Mr. Goldman was seated
and basically flailing backwards in a seated position or standing and flailing
backwards? Are you able to make that determination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It will be difficult for me to opine on that, but I
would favor that probably this was when he was mobile and able to move his
extremities.

MR. KELBERG: Okay. Mobile meaning?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Standing up at some point during the assault.

MR. KELBERG: And moving his extremities, referring to his arms?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me get another photograph. I think we have
enough team to touch upon it.

MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, I have another board. May this be
marked--oh, I'm sorry. I don't need it. I'm sorry. It's on this board. It's
photograph G-20.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you see something in photograph G-20 above the
blue photographic identification card that is of any significance to you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. You have a smaller abrasion, and in front of it,
there's an interrupted intact skin area, and in front of that, you have a
triangular abrasion. By the way, the photograph shows the front of the body. On
the left side of the photograph, you can see the nipple there.

MR. KELBERG: Nipple of the breast?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And the triangular abrasion base is facing the
front, and you have another area of abrasion in front of the triangular
abrasion. There's another area of intact skin between these two. And so you
have three non-specific areas of abrasion injury. You also have a faint
abrasion above it in this--running in a horizontal axis, on a side-to-side axis
of the photograph in the left arm, and you also have a smaller abrasion near
the left elbow area.

MR. KELBERG: I would like to focus if we could on this interrupted group
of abrasions you talked about. First of all, can you point on your left arm in
general where is that area on Mr. Goldman's arm?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is somewhere in this region here
(indicating).

MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, Dr. Lakshmanan is pointing to
an area, appears to be halfway between the shoulder and the elbow and towards
the--about the middle between the front and the back of the body.

THE COURT: Typical tattoo location.

MR. KELBERG: I'll take your word on that, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have looked at--

MR. KELBERG: If we could have the environmental photos back, please. Let
me see if I can hold it over here this time. With the Court's permission, can I
sit on counsel table?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have examined, have you not, in your visits to
the Bundy location the sapling and the support stake that are seen in
photograph CS1?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, did you also examine Mr. Goldman's shirt that
he was wearing at the time his body was found?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, and does that shirt and the sapling and the support
stake have any significance to you in evaluating what you've described as this
interrupted area of abrasion seen in photograph G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There are two issues here. One is, you have an--you have
an intermediate object, the clothing, between the area in contact, if that was
the area of contact which caused this injury and the skin surface. So you won't
have a pattern of the object--

MR. KELBERG: Turn so--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You won't have the pattern of the object which caused
the injury on the skin surface because the clothing is interspersed between the
object and the skin. The second factor is, there is a space, interrupted skin
space there. And if you look at the sapling of the support beam, there is an
area between the two because the support beam or stake holds the sapling
upright. So one way this injury could have been caused is if the hand put the
shirt on its surface, had come in contact with that area causing an abrasion.
It's not an abrasion contusion. It's mainly an abrasion injury. So you don't
necessarily have force because if it was force, then it's just a scrape on the
area.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Mr. Goldman either backed into that area where
his left arm in that area shown in the photograph came in contact or if he
somehow was pushed into that area such that that part of his left arm came in
contact with the space between the sapling and the support stake, would that in
your opinion be consistent with the resulting interrupted abrasion pattern we
see in photograph G-20?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That could be one explanation for it if that's what
happened.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, is there anything about the appearance of that
interrupted area of abrasions which allows you to be more specific as to
potential manners in which that could have been received?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This would be one possible scenario of how this
happened, especially with the interrupted intact skin which would be explained
by the space between the stake and the plant. But of course, you should realize
that you also have clothing which can also fold when this happens. But there's
no specific pattern to the injury which can say with absolute certainty, that's
how--that's what caused it, but I would favor that scenario more than other
scenarios there.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, finally before I believe we're going to end
the day, can you exclude that that is due to a blow struck by the perpetrator,
either a fist to the perpetrator or a rounded end of the knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I couldn't exclude it, but the problem is, you have
these areas of intact skin there which, if caused by the folding of the
clothing, would leave more of a pattern. But I would favor more an object of
this nature because it's only a scrape, because if it's a blow of the knife,
you would expect also a lot of bruising there like we saw in the scalp
contusion in Nicole because there would also be crushing injury, which you
don't have here. It's only a scrape in the skin.

MR. KELBERG: And absent that bruising, does that suggest to you that in
fact that was not the cause?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, would this be a convenient time for the
break?

THE COURT: Yes, it would. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going
to take our recess for the day. Please remember all of my admonitions to you;
do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the
case, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, do
not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As
far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow
morning. All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. Doctor, tomorrow morning,
8:45.